Court Opinion

ID: 9678565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:23:17.756196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.646327
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. I concur. The first issue to be decided in this case is whether the Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Doctrine in Act 796 of 1993 (Ark. Code Ann. § 11-19-107 (Repl. 1996)) bars a statutory discrimination action based upon physical impairment sought under Arkansas’s Civil Rights Act (Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-123-101, particularly -107). The trial court said yes, and I presume that is the reason it dismissed Malone’s action with prejudice. I disagree with the trial court’s decision on this legal point, but I still would dismiss without prejudice under ARCP Rule 12(b)(6) because I believe Malone’s complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support his civil rights claim. Concerning whether Malone’s civil rights claim in circuit court can survive the Exclusive Remedy Doctrine of the workers’ compensation law, I would point out that § 11-9-107 imposes ajine against any employer who willfully discriminates regarding the hiring or tenure of any worker on account of that worker’s claim for benefits under the chapter. Here, Malone’s complaint is not based or couched in terms of his employer’s retaliatory measure on account of Malone having sought Workers’ Compensation benefits. Instead, Malone seeks relief, alleging his employer terminated him because of his physical disability. It is also significant to me that if Malone is precluded from pursuing an action under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, he has no real remedy. Section 11-9-107 affords only remedies that penalize the employer and avail Malone nothing. In my view, the Exclusive Remedy Doctrine in no way conflicts with or bars a properly established or alleged claim, under the Civil Rights Act. In sum, I conclude the trial court erred in deciding it had no subject-matter jurisdiction in this cause, and while I believe the trial court therefore erred in dismissing Malone’s action with prejudice, I would dismiss Malone’s complaint because it does not contain sufficient facts to support his civil rights claim.