Excerpt
Regarding the conflicting testimony in this case, Mr. Thomas was not a credible witness since his testimony was confusing and at times evasive. In contrast, three witnesses credibly testified about Mr. Thomas’ refusal to wear the fire retardant life jacket. The record contains no credible evidence that Mr. Thomas’ discharge was motivated by retaliation for his workers’ compensation claim. The temporal proximity between his return to work from workers’ compensation leave and his termination is explained by the other employee’s request for the return of his life jacket which in turn caused Mr. Rappold to discuss the situation when Mr.
Thomas returned to work on July 1, 2012. Further, Mr. Thomas has not demonstrated any discriminatory action because several General Ship employees have gone out on workers’ compensation leave and not been terminated upon their return to work. And, Mr. Thomas is not the first General Ship employee to be terminated for insubordination or violation of company rules. Finally, Mr. Thomas’ termination was warranted because his obstinacy about the fire
retardant life jacket made it impossible for General Ship to continue to employ him.
No comments:
Post a Comment