# Bleier v. Wellington Sears Company

> Supreme Court of Alabama · January 21, 2000 · 757 So. 2d 1163

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932747

## Case

- **Full name:** William M. Bleier v. Wellington Sears Company.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** January 21, 2000
- **Citations:** 757 So. 2d 1163; 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1688; 2000 Ala. LEXIS 16; 2000 WL 46147
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnstone
- **Judges:** Johnstone, Lyons
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932747

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining the remedial nature of § 25-5-11.1 and holding that courts "must construe § 25-5-11.1 in a manner that effectuates the obvious legislative intent to protect an employee from a retaliatory discharge based solely on the employee's filing a workers' compensation claim"
- holding that there is no "willing and able" requirement
- applying judicial estoppel in a retaliatory-discharge case based on an earlier statement made in a case before DIR

## Opinion text

I concur, but with the qualification that the defense that the employee was discharged for unwillingness or inability to do the job will not be recognized unless, at the time of discharge, either (1) the employee was able but was unwilling to do the job or (2) the employee had reached maximum medical improvement. For example, the employer will not be allowed to contend that its reason for discharging the employee was that he was recuperating in the hospital from his on-the-job injury and thus was unable or unwilling to do the job.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932747. Public record. Not legal advice.