Opinion ID: 6078
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reduction of Workers' Compensation Claims

Text: Parham next argues that Carrier's motive for firing employees who had been on leave for 24 months was to reduce compensation claims. But a generalized desire to reduce compensation claims))in itself))is not impermissible. What is impermissible is actively discouraging the filing of compensation claims. Under the right circumstances, such discouragement may be evidence of retaliatory discharge.12 But no such circumstances are present here. The only support that Parham musters to suggest that Carrier discouraged compensation claims is an isolated statement in the deposition of 10 Id., and Murray Corp. of Maryland v. Brooks, 600 S.W.2d 897, 903 (Tex. Civ. App.))Tyler 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 11 Id. 12 Paragon, 783 S.W.2d at 658. 8 a Carrier representative, Nathaniel Ellison, who said, We were trying to eliminate the number of comp claims by improving our safety. By parroting the first clause of this statement (We were trying to eliminate the number of comp claims)))both in his brief and at oral argument))while de-emphasizing or omitting the latter clause (by improving our safety), Parham attempts to suggest that Carrier was engaged in some sort of persecution of employees who filed workers' compensation claims. That suggestion is ludicrous: improving plant safety to reduce the number of employee injuries is a very different thing from firing employees in retaliation for filing compensation claims.13