Retaliatory Discharge Under Workers' Compensation Law
![handle is hein.journals/nyls31 and id is 733 raw text is: COMMENTS
RETALIATORY DISCHARGE UNDER WORKERS'
COMPENSATION LAW
INTRODUCTION
[Labor Unions] were organized out of the necessities of the sit-
uation. A single employee was helpless in dealing with an em-
ployer. He was dependent ordinarily on his daily wage for the
maintenance of himself and family. If the employer refused to
pay him the wages that he thought fair, he was nevertheless
unable to leave the employ and to resist arbitrary and unfair
treatment.
The labor union movement was a response to the imbalance in the
relationship of the individual employee to his employer.2 Unionism,
however, has not eliminated employer-employee inequality. In the
many employment relationships not covered by collective bargaining
agreements, the same imbalance still exists. This imbalance is high-
lighted in one of its most egregious forms where the employer, under
the legal guise of the employment-at-will doctrine,' is able to discharge
an employee in retaliation for the employee's exercise of a statutorily-
guaranteed right, for example, the filing of a workers' compensation
claim.
In recent years, many states have attempted to resolve the conflict
between the employer's absolute right of discharge and the employee's
right to file a workers' compensation claim.4 Obviously, for the goals of
1. American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Cent. Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 209
(1921).
2. Id.
3. See H.G. WOOD, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MASTER AND SERVANT § 134, at 272
(1877). Wood is generally credited with first articulating the doctrine of employment-at-
will, that allows an employer to legally dismiss an employee at will, that is, an employee
whose employment relationship is indefinite or of no set duration. See also Blades, Em-
ployment at Will vs. Individual Freedom: On Limiting the Abusive Exercise of Em-
ployer Power, 67 COLUm. L. REV. 1404, 1416 (1967) (citing Payne v. Western & A. R.R.,
81 Tenn. 507, 519-20 (1884) (interpreting the doctrine to mean that the employer could
dismiss for good cause, no cause, or cause morally wrong)).
4. For a discussion of the development of the case law restricting the employer's ab-
solute right of discharge in retaliation for an employee's filing of a workers' compensa-
tion claim, see infra notes 82-136 and accompanying text.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/nyls31&div=36&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Retaliatory Discharge Under Workers' Compensation Law
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most