A Texas appeals court on Thursday upheld a $ 1.7 million allotment to a concrete mixer truck driver who said he was fired for filing a workers' claim.
In his seventh year of work for Alleyton Resource Co. and affiliated companies, Joseph Ball was injured in 2015 and later hired a lawyer to handle his claims, which included medical treatment and benefits. He was then released to return to light work and documented the delivery of lots of concrete from other drivers. Within a few months, he was released to return to full service without restraint despite suffering pain related to his injury, according to documents in Alleyton Resource Company v. Joseph Ball filed in the Court of Appeal. of Texas, 1
Mr. Ball testified that he told his employer that he was in pain but that he “showed up at work and did his best because he needed to support his family. Ball was always clear that he was working through the pain, but he could do his job, "it appears from the court documents.
As a result of this conversation with the supervisor, Ball was offered unpaid leave or short-term disability as an alternative. He replied that "he was not interested in any of the alternatives, that he wanted to continue working because he needed the money" and concluded, the documents say.
"From the date Ball was released to return to work without any restrictions until the date he was terminated, Ball received no writings, incident reports or disciplinary action," the documents state.
Find that the Employer had violated the state's retaliation, Mr. Ball was awarded $ 956,187 in actual damages, $ 750,000 in exemplary damages, pre-valuation and interest after the judgment and taxable court costs.
In the appeal, Alleyton claimed that the jury had invoked. on permissible evidence that was "actually insufficient" and included hearsay, among other allegations.
The Board of Appeal convicted Alleyton of all its arguments and wrote in part that the employer "when he did his sufficient challenge … focuses exclusively on evidence contrary to the jury's judgment and ignores the evidence in support of the judgment.