Opinion ID: 2450542
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Campbell's petition states a claim for relief

Text: Having determined a cause of action exists for retaliatory discharge based on the pursuit of a wage claim under the KWPA, we must next consider whether Campbell states such a claim. In his petition, Campbell alleges: (1) He filed a complaint with the KDOL alleging he was not being paid properly under the KWPA; (2) Husky Hogs terminated him after he filed the complaint only 1 business day after Campbell received acknowledgement that his complaint was filed; (3) the termination was in retaliation for filing the complaint with the KDOL; (4) Campbell suffered damages, including lost wages, as a result of being terminated; and (5) his termination violated an important public policy under Kansas law. We resolved the public policy factor above. In Rebarchek, this court held that the elements for a prima facie claim for retaliatory discharge for filing a workers compensation claim are: (1) The plaintiff filed a claim for workers compensation benefits or sustained an injury for which he or she might assert a future claim for such benefits; (2) the employer had knowledge of the plaintiff's workers compensation claim injury; (3) the employer terminated the plaintiff's employment; and (4) a causal connection existed between the protected activity or injury and the termination. 272 Kan. at 554, 35 P.3d 892. As noted above, in reviewing a dismissal under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6), appellate courts assume the facts alleged by plaintiff are true, along with any inferences reasonably drawn from them. Bland, 279 Kan. at 963, 112 P.3d 941. Given the similarities between alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers compensation claim and filing a KWPA claim, we find the allegations stated by Campbell sufficient to avoid dismissal at this early stage in the proceedings under our standard of review.