Court of Appeals Rejects REDA Claim by Pro Se Plaintiff
In Fatta v M & M Properties Management, Inc. the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard an appeal by a pro se plaintiff of the trial court’s granting of summary judgement. Plaintiff worked for the company in one of their hotels as a property manager. During Plaintiff’s training, he was injured while cleaning a room. He reported the injury to his supervisor and said he would file workers’ compensation paperwork if the injury was more severe than a pulled muscle. A day after he reported his injury to his supervisor, Plaintiff was given a first and final written warning; five days after the warning Plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff filed a Form 18 with the North Carolina Industrial Commission five days following his termination.
Plaintiff contends that the company violated the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA) by firing him while he was engaged in protected activity, namely threatening to file a workers’ compensation claim. The Court of Appeals agreed that threatening to file a workers’ compensation claim is protected activity. However, the Court affirmed the trial court’s order because Plaintiff could not show a causal relationship between his termination and threatening to file a claim. Plaintiff argued that the close proximity in time between when he reported his injury and was terminated showed that Defendant had unfairly retaliated against him for threatening to file a workers’ compensation claim. However the Court stated that the proximity of the date of injury to the termination date is not enough, standing alone, to show a causal connection.
Given the really close timing here, the Court’s decision seems incorrect. But, it appears that because the plaintiff was not represented by an attorney, he did not develop the facts in his case as well as he could have. There well could have been more incriminating facts that were not put before the court.
Categories: Judicial Decisions