Katherine L. Buchanan v. Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 2002-CA-00529-SCT

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; March 4, 2002; Mississippi; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Katherine L. Buchanan appealed the Circuit Court of Warren County's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc. The judgment, dated March 5, 2002, concluded that Buchanan failed to establish an employer-employee relationship with the casino, and the court recognized only two exceptions to the employment at-will doctrine in Mississippi: termination for refusing to engage in illegal acts or for being exposed to illegal acts by the employer or its agents. Buchanan, who had been injured on the job and received workers’ compensation, claimed she was wrongfully discharged, arguing her termination was in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim, which she contended violated Mississippi public policy. 

The court found that Buchanan's claims were interrelated and determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact, thus affirming the summary judgment. The appellate review followed a de novo standard, assessing whether the evidence, viewed in favor of Buchanan, revealed any genuine issues of material fact. The court underscored that the burden of proof rested on Ameristar to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues, which it successfully did.

Mississippi operates under the employment-at-will doctrine, allowing either party to terminate employment for any reason or no reason. In McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., the court recognized two exceptions: employees cannot be terminated for refusing to engage in illegal acts or for reporting illegal acts of their employer. In the case of Buchanan, who was an at-will employee of Ameristar, her employment status was confirmed through signed documents indicating no contractual obligations. Buchanan did not claim her termination was due to refusal to participate in illegal activities or reporting such acts, thus failing to meet the exceptions to the at-will doctrine. The court found no genuine issue of material fact, affirming the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Ameristar. A dissenting opinion expressed concern over the court's adherence to precedent, arguing that retaliatory termination for filing a workers' compensation claim should be actionable under the statutory framework governing workers' compensation.

In Kelly, the court determined that retaliatory firing linked to an employee's workers' compensation claim does not constitute an independent cause of action, opting to leave any exceptions to the legislature rather than creating them judicially. In McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., the court identified two exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine: (1) an employee may bring a tort action if they refuse to participate in illegal acts, and (2) an employee may file a tort action if discharged for reporting their employer's illegal conduct. Despite the adverse effects of retaliatory discharge for filing workers' compensation claims, the court has not recognized additional exceptions. The statutory framework requires employers to accept liability for work-related injuries, and employees must use the Act as their sole remedy. The dissent argues that it is inconsistent with the Act’s purpose to prevent employees from pursuing a private right of action for retaliatory termination when they are already compelled to relinquish their right to sue for work-related injuries. The dissent calls for overruling Kelly, recognizing a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, and remanding the case for trial.