Court Opinion

ID: 9931919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:31:56.093516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:35:42.801897
License: Public Domain

While I disagree that Fluor's mere job site in Tennessee constituted a "place of business" that would contribute to the localization of Hill's employment in Tennessee, I still concur because Hill's employment is localized under another alternative within the localization subsection, § 25-5-35(b), Ala. Code 1975, which reads in pertinent part:
 "A person's employment is principally localized in . . . another state . . . if he is domiciled and spends a substantial part of his working time in the service of his employer in . . . such other state."