Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesattorneyliabilitywrongful terminationworkers' compensation
damageslitigationattorneylawyerliabilitywillwrongful terminationworkers' compensationcommon law

Related Cases

Dodge; U.S. v.
View Case »
Doe v. Nielsen
View Case »
Guerrier v. Garland
View Case »
Attorney Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez
View Case »
Weber v. Department of State
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Torres v. Precision Industries, Inc.

Facts

Ricardo Torres worked for Precision Industries from January 2011 until his termination in September 2012. Although he was not authorized to work in the U.S. at the time, he obtained work authorization several months after his firing. After injuring his back at work and pursuing a workers' compensation claim, Torres was confronted by his supervisors, who expressed hostility towards his legal actions. Following a recommendation from a supervisor, the company's president fired Torres without knowledge of his attorney's involvement.

Ricardo Torres worked for Precision Industries from January 2011 until he was fired in September 2012. He was not legally authorized to work in the United States during this period, but he obtained work authorization about five months later. Precision did not learn of Torres's unauthorized status until this litigation. (Torres had listed a fake Social Security number on a tax form when he started the job.) In May 2012, Torres injured his back at work. He reported the injury to Precision's safety manager, Cheri Norwood, who scheduled a doctor's appointment for later that day. A week later, Torres returned to workbut the pain got worse. Norwood did not schedule a new doctor's appointment, so Torres scheduled his own and presented Precision with the doctor's bill. Precision wouldn't pay, so Torres hired a lawyer to pursue a workers' compensation claim.

Issue

Did the district court err in its determination of employer liability and the applicability of federal law regarding backpay and damages in a workers' compensation retaliation case involving an unauthorized alien?

Did the district court err in its determination of employer liability and the applicability of federal law regarding backpay and damages in a workers' compensation retaliation case involving an unauthorized alien?

Rule

Tennessee law prohibits employers from firing employees for filing workers' compensation claims, and while federal law under the Immigration Reform and Control Act limits recovery for unauthorized workers, it does not preclude damages for periods of lawful employment.

Tennessee's common law expressly prohibits employers from firing employees for filing workers' compensation claims. See Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 108-09 (Tenn. 2015); Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d 441, 444-45 (Tenn. 1984). To make a claim for retaliatory discharge, a former employee must show that his application for workers' compensation benefits was a 'substantial [**5] motivating factor' in the employer's decision to end the employment relationship.

Analysis

The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Torres's workers' compensation claim was a substantial motivating factor in his termination. The audio recording of the confrontation revealed retaliatory animus from the supervisors, which the district court reasonably interpreted as evidence of wrongful termination. The court also determined that the district court did not err in applying agency principles to hold Precision liable for the actions of its agents.

Start with the court's factual conclusion that Momberger acted with retaliatory animus toward Torres. For one thing, the animus is apparent from the audio recording of their conversation. On the recording, Momberger asked Torres: 'Why'd you go to a lawyer? You think we have to pay for that?' And he followed up with a threat: 'When Terry [Hedrick] finds out about this sh–, you're in a world of hurt.' Then he called Hedrick and recommended that Torres be fired. From this evidence, the district court reasonably concluded that Momberger was 'very angry that Torres had gotten an attorney and initiated legal proceedings.'

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's liability determination but reduced the damages award due to the employee's unauthorized status during part of the employment period.

The court affirmed the district court's liability determination but reduced the damages award due to the employee's unauthorized status during part of the employment period.

Who won?

Ricardo Torres prevailed in the case as the court upheld the finding of wrongful termination and awarded him damages for the period he was authorized to work.

Ricardo Torres prevailed in the case as the court upheld the finding of wrongful termination and awarded him damages for the period he was authorized to work.

You must be