Court Opinion

ID: 9739202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:10:29.104978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.669958
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WELCH, specially concurring: I concur in the majority opinion but only to the extent that it holds that plaintiff established retaliation under section 6 — 101(A) of the Act by proving that Carter Coal Company discharged him because he had previously filed a charge of discrimination against a former employer. As the majority points out in discussing its alternative basis for its decision, the record on appeal demonstrates that the Commission fully intended to adopt the findings of fact of the ALJ, that is, that plaintiff was hired and discharged by Carter Coal Company, but the Commission erroneously stated that plaintiff had been denied employment by Carter Coal Company. In its order and decision, the Commission adopted the findings of the ALJ. The ALJ found that plaintiff had in fact been hired and then discharged by Carter Coal Company. Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the Commission only on the "alternative basis” presented by the majority, that is, that plaintiff was discharged by Carter Coal Company because he had previously filed a charge of discrimination against a former employer.