CompFox AI Summary
Anthony Sasser, a long-haul truck driver, sued his former employer, Averitt Express, Inc., for retaliatory discharge after being fired shortly after settling a workers' compensation claim for permanent partial disability benefits. Averitt claimed the discharge was due to Sasser's physical inability to work, but a jury found for Sasser, awarding him $500,000 in damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's finding of liability, concluding that Sasser's pursuit of workers' compensation was a substantial motivating factor in his termination. However, the court vacated the damage award, citing errors in jury instructions regarding damages and non-compliance with new punitive damages guidelines, and remanded the case for a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The court also clarified that reinstatement is an available and preferred equitable remedy, with front pay as an alternative.
Sasser v. Averitt Express, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Anthony Sasser, a long-haul truck driver, sued his former employer, Averitt Express, Inc., for retaliatory discharge after being fired shortly after settling a workers' compensation claim for permanent partial disability benefits. Averitt claimed the discharge was due to Sasser's physical inability to work, but a jury found for Sasser, awarding him $500,000 in damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's finding of liability, concluding that Sasser's pursuit of workers' compensation was a substantial motivating factor in his termination. However, the court vacated the damage award, citing errors in jury instructions regarding damages and non-compliance with new punitive damages guidelines, and remanded the case for a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The court also clarified that reinstatement is an available and preferred equitable remedy, with front pay as an alternative.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.