Aaron Earl Hinton v. Designer Ensembles, Inc.

Wrongful Discharge, Retaliatory for Filing Workers' Compensation Claim - Designer employed Hinton in December 1993 as a shipping department supervisor. As a supervisor, Hinton understood and was often required to enforce Designer's attendance policy. Under this policy, if an employee was absent for three consecutive days without calling Designer or for five consecutive days without providing Designer a doctor's excuse, the employee could be terminated. On August 2, 1994, Hinton injured his right ankle and lower back in a work-related accident. Prior to the accident, Hinton had never missed a work day or arrived late, nor had he been disciplined by Designer for poor work performance. After the accident, Hinton underwent treatment and did not work again until late October when he was released by his doctor for work subject to certain restrictions which Designer intended to accommodate. Upon returning to work, Hinton began suffering from pain in his back. Hinton left a message on his supervisor's, Mahaffey's, answering machine stating he experienced pain but planned on working the next day. On November 2, Hinton reported to work, but called Mahaffey at home complaining of pain. Hinton told Mahaffey he planned to leave if the pain remained. A member of Hinton's crew called Mahaffey an hour later and reported that Hinton had left work. Hinton testified that after approximately two hours, he informed Mahaffey the pain rendered work unbearable. On November 3, Hinton called and complained of too much pain to work. Mahaffey informed Hinton the absence was unexcused because Dr. Kopera had released Hinton to work. On November 4, 1994, Hinton called and complained that he was in too much pain to work. Mahaffey again told Hinton the absence was unexcused without a doctor's excuse. On November 5, a Saturday, Hinton did not go to work and did not call, even though Mahaffey had previously required Hinton to work on Saturdays until January 1. On November 7, Hinton neither went to work nor called to tell Designer he would be absent. On November 8, Hinton called and complained of too much pain to work. When Mahaffey again told Hinton the absence was unexcused, Hinton responded by claiming someone called in for him on Monday. On November 9, 1994, Hinton called and complained of too much pain to work and Mahaffey again told Hinton the absence was unexcused. Hinton called on November 10, but Mahaffey was in a meeting. On November 11, 1994, Mahaffey called Hinton. When Hinton returned the call, Mahaffey transferred Hinton to Nettles, who discharged Hinton for having too many unexcused absences. On November 15, Dr. Reid ordered an MRI which revealed a herniated disc as the source of Hinton's problem. On February 14, 1995, Hinton attempted to resume working, but Designer told Hinton he no longer had a job. Hinton eventually obtained a job as a shipping manager at another company, but he resigned over salary negotiations in February 1996. He has not worked since. Hinton received his full salary from Designer for the first thirty days after the accident and then began receiving temporary total disability payments. In June 1995, a hearing was held on Designer's motion to stop payment of the benefits. At the hearing, Hinton testified his injuries continued to worsen, necessitating further medical treatment. The hearing commissioner's order (the 1995 order) found Hinton reached MMI on January 20, 1995, found Hinton suffered a 14 percent permanent partial disability, and granted Designer's stop payment request. The hearing commissioner also required Hinton to refund a portion of the temporary total disability payments. On November 9, 1995, Hinton filed a complaint against Designer alleging retaliatory discharge and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Designer answered, denying liability on both theories. Though the public policy action was eventually dismissed, the retaliatory discharge claim went to trial. At trial, a Designer supervisor testified he reminded Hinton on two occasions to obtain a doctor's excuse to avoid violating Designer's policy. After the second warning in late October, Hinton never provided a doctor's excuse except for a one-day excuse from St. Francis Hospital emergency room. Hinton acknowledged that failing to provide a doctor's excuse for eleven days would violate Designer's policy, but testified that he understood from his visits with Dr. Kopera that Kopera had communicated with Designer about Hinton's continued difficulty working. In addition, a supervisor testified that she talked with Dr. Kopera on several occasions, but could not remember whether she continued to speak with him up until and after Hinton was fired. She also testified that she "quite possibly" could have talked to Dr. Reid but could not recall definitely. Moreover, she admitted she often talked with Designer's workers' compensation carrier, who kept her informed about Hinton's treatment status.

Plaintiff's Verdict - the trial court ruled for Hinton, noting that Designer knew of Hinton's condition and fired Hinton while he was receiving temporary total disability benefits, and concluded that Hinton was discharged in retaliation against his workers' compensation claim and ordered reinstatement.

Unknown

Unknown

The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that reinstatement would be inappropriate under the circumstances. See 516 S.E.2d 665 (S.C.App. 1999). Note that the above cited date is the date of the appellate decision and not the trial date. Reported by C.H. Processed J.F.