Did WC Claim Cause Meat Plant to Put Worker’s Job in Grinder?

What Do You Think?

Sioux Falls, SD (WorkersCompensation.com) -- The steps a company takes to either fuel or put the brakes on an employee’s workers’ compensation retaliation claim tend to repeat themselves from case to case. That’s illustrated in a ruling by the South Dakota Supreme court concerning whether to allow a meat processing plant employee’s case to go forward.

About a month after starting work, the company cited the production worker for "poor attendance during [his] probationary period" in a disciplinary action form dated March 15, 2020. 

On May 23, he injured himself and received workers' compensation benefits.

When he returned to work, he received a second citation after he reported late on April 15.

On April 30, he reaggravated his injury. His doctor wrote a note which the company received on May 1 stating that the employee would have to miss work until he could see an orthopedist on May 6.

A personnel action form showed that he was terminated May 1 for "poor attendance during [his] probationary period." When his attorney reached out to the company, the HR director explained that the employee was fired because he did not show up for work on May 1,4, and 5, and failed to notify the company.

The employee sued for retaliation.

To establish workers’ compensation retaliation, the court explained, the employee had to overcome the company’s seemingly legitimate explanation that it fired him for violating its attendance policies. To do so, the employee had to show that the explanation was a pretext for retaliating against him for filing his workers’ compensation claim.

Did the employee establish a workers’ compensation retaliation lawsuit?

A. No. The fact that he was cited for non-attendance before he even filed his workers’ compensation claim suggested that the company’s stated reason for terminating him was genuine.

B. Yes. Three factors, including the company’s inconsistent explanations for terminating him, suggested the termination was a cover for retaliation.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Matta v. Dakota Provisions, No. 30478-SRJ (S.D. 10/10/24), which held that the employee established a viable retaliation case.

First, the court noted, the company terminated him only about a month after he filed his claim. That closeness in time between the two events suggested the company’s explanation was pretextual.

Further, the company gave inconsistent reasons for terminating the employee. First, it said it was terminating him for attendance problems in March and April. It later explained that it terminated him for his non-attendance in early May.

Finally, the court pointed out that the company’s explanation that it fired him for missing work without notifying it in early May didn’t hold water; the company had already been told that he would miss work due to an exacerbation of his injury.

“Not only does this explanation differ from the specific dates that were offered in Dakota Provisions' original justification for terminating [the employee], but it is also inconsistent with the facts available in the record,” the court wrote.

Because a reasonable jury could find that the company terminated the employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim, the court reversed a lower court and permitted the case to go forward.

Share This Article: