Section 46 Exclusive Causation

• Library: Emp-Emp Law 2000

The most frequent issue addressed in litigation is causation. To prevail under § 287.780, RSMo 1994, the plaintiff must establish that the exercise of workers’ compensation was the exclusive cause of the discharge or other discriminatory action. Hansome v. Northwestern Cooperage Co., 679 S.W.2d 273, 274 (Mo. banc 1984). The Supreme Court has strongly reaffirmed the requirement that the employee establish an exclusive causal relationship. In Crabtree v. Bugby, 967 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. banc 1998), the Court reversed and remanded for new trial a jury decision in favor of the employee because the jury instruction erroneously required only that the defendant discharge the plaintiff “as a direct result” of the plaintiff’s claim for compensation. In surprisingly strong language, the Court emphasized continued adherence to Hansome’s requirement of


exclusive causation absent legislative change in the statutory language:

If there is an injustice or an absurdity, it would be for this Court to abandon the requirement that the discharge be exclusively caused by the exercise of rights pursuant to the workers’ compensation law. Under that rule, an employee who admittedly was fired for tardiness, absenteeism, or incompetence at work would still be able to maintain a cause of action for discharge if the worker could persuade a factfinder that, in addition to the other causes, a cause of discharge was the exercise of rights under the workers’ compensation law. Such rule would encourage marginally competent employees to file the most petty claims in order to...