Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
In an opinion not designated for publication, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed a trial court’s order granting the defendant/employer summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge action filed against it by a former police officer who was terminated subsequent to his sustaining an admitted work-related injury. Noting that the states Retaliatory Employment Discharge Act (“REDA”) invoked a burden-shifting framework, the court agreed that the officer had “exercised his right” to file a workers’ compensation claim and subsequently had “suffered an adverse employment action.” Therefore, the first two of three elements of a prima facie case had been established. As to the third element, the officer failed to show a close temporal proximity between his filing for benefits and his termination (four months elapsed between the two). Moreover, the employer had shown a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing the officer—dishonesty. With that showing, the burden shifted back to the plaintiff/officer. The court indicated the plaintiff had failed to bring forth any evidence to contradict the employer’s evidence that plaintiff had lied to another officer about a matter important to their employment duties.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Atkins v. Town of Wake Forest, 2019 N.C. App. LEXIS 576 (July 2, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 104.07.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law