Julie Geronimo worked for Caterpillar in Dyersburg until she was terminated for failure to promptly report a work injury. Geronimo worked as a machinist and then an assembler. Not long after starting the assembler work, Geronimio began to experience pain. Her job required her to press down clutch plates on an assembly line and from the start, Geronimo experienced "muscle strain" in her palms, upper arms, and fingers. The pain continued and, after four weeks on the job, it increased, causing her hands to go numb and tingle when performing manual tasks even outside of work.
Geronimo said nothing to Caterpillar about the pain for some 35 days. She then spoke to the company nurse, telling the nurse she may have to have surgery. Geronimo had not consulted a physician. Rather, as she told the nurse, she had read about her condition on the internet a week earlier. By the time Geronimo spoke to the nurse, she was characterizing her pain levels as almost unbearable. The day after seeing the nurse, Caterpillar fired Geronimo because of her "failure to communicate an injury in a timely manner."
Caterpillar's safety rules require employees to report the occurrence of injuries immediately or, if the injury was gradually-occurring, to report it as soon as an employee realizes they are injured and suspects it is work related. Geronimo admitted she knew the policy. She decided not to report the pain, she said, because she thought she would lose her job.
Geronimo filed a lawsuit alleging Caterpillar's reporting requirements, specifically, her termination for failing to follow the reporting requirements, violated Tennessee's workers' compensation law. Her argument was that the workers' compensation law permits employees to obtain compensation if the employee reports an injury within 30 days and Caterpillar's immediate reporting requirement contravened the statutory reporting provisions.
The Sixth Circuit didn't buy it, holding that even though the statute gives her thirty days in which to report a gradually-occurring injury if she wants to obtain workers’ compensation benefits, the statute also provides that an injury "shall" be reported immediately. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-201(a). Thus, the court held, an employer's policy requiring prompt reporting of injuries is not inconsistent with the workers' compensation law.
Caterpillar imposed the reporting rule, it explained, because the "late reporting of injuries can result in otherwise avoidable aggravation of those injuries, whereas timely reporting will allow the problems to be addressed before they become severe and may also help to prevent other employees from becoming similarly injured."
The court agreed with this policy, characterizing Geronimo's argument as giving:
employees the opportunity to aggravate existing work injuries, potentially compromise the safety of other individuals, and prevent their employers from providing possible remedies for gradually-occurring injuries at the earliest possible date, by choosing not to report their injuries for days, or even weeks, after the employee realizes she has been injured. Moreover, although the statute grants an employee a maximum of thirty days in which to report the injury and still obtain workers’ compensation, the language itself not only mandates immediate reporting by all employees, but provides incentive to do so by refusing to allow payment of physician’s fees or compensation for the period of time between when the injury occurred and when the employee provided notice of the injury. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-201(a).
Tennessee employers thinking about adopting Caterpillar's injury reporting policy should be aware that the facts of this case are rather unique and it will (or should) be rarely used to fire an employee. Geronimo made a crucial mistake in admitting to the nurse that she knew she had injured herself before she reported it. Most employees won't make that mistake, at least not after the employer fires an employee for violating the timely reporting requirement. In addition, employers must enforce a reporting policy evenhandedly. There was no allegation of disparate treatment in this case. Nor was there any evidence that Caterpillar used the reporting requirement to rid itself of employees who sustained compensable injuries, or that it fired employees before they could claim a compensable injury. Evenhanded enforcement will also help to avoid any potential FMLA or ADA concerns.
It can't be emphasized enough that employers who have a policy of this nature should do everything possible to avoid firing employees who timely report injuries. Had Geronimo, for example, presented evidence that employees who timely reported injuries did, in fact, lose their jobs (as she believed) the outcome might have been different.
Of course, Caterpillar's goal was to head off gradual (or soft) injuries before they necessitate significant or costly corrective action. That is laudable from several aspects and one or two firings for violating the policy should serve to emphasize that the employer is serious about employee safety.
No comments:
Post a Comment