Federal court revives injured airline worker’s claim of retaliation

A federal appellate court on Monday revived an airline employee’s claim that he was terminated in retaliation for his pursuit of workers compensation benefits for a head injury.

Erasto Román Mercado was working for Hyannis Air Services Inc., an airline company headquartered in Massachusetts that provides services in the Caribbean, in April 2017, when he was injured when a cabin door suddenly unhinged and struck him in the head, according to Mercado v. Hyannis Air Services Inc.

Mr. Mercado later asked Hyannis for an incident report filed by the pilot so he could seek medical treatment with Puerto Rico’s workers compensation system, but Hyannis told him to use his personal insurance. Six months after the incident, Mr. Mercado went to the emergency room at a nearby hospital and was referred for a neurological evaluation.

Over a year after the accident and after experiencing neck pain and numbness in his hands for several months, Mercado saw other providers, one of whom referred him to the workers compensation system, where he began receiving treatment.

Hyannis placed Mr. Mercado on a three-month leave in December 2018 under the Family and Medical Leave Act, during which doctors from the workers compensation system examined him.

He had neck surgery in February 2019 and remained off work until June 2019, when Hyannis sent him a letter saying he was terminated as of May 21, 2019, for failing to keep it informed of his status. However, the Hyannis employee who sent the letter knew Mr. Mercado was receiving treatment through the workers’ compensation system and that he was placed off work.

Mr. Mercado sued Hyannis in a federal trial court in Puerto Rico, alleging various state and federal claims.  The district court granted a summary judgment dismissing the retaliation claim under Puerto Rico’s Whistle-Blower Act.

In reversing, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals said there were material inconsistencies in Hyannis’ reasons for the termination, which supports a showing of pretext. In the termination letter, the court said, Hyannis claimed that Mr. Mercado was being terminated for failing to keep it informed of his status. But on appeal, it claimed that Mr. Mercado was terminated due to its “operational needs.”

In its brief, Hyannis claimed it decided to fire Mr. Mercado in May 2019 after he failed to respond to his supervisor’s messages, but the supervisor said he began discussing Mr. Mercado’s termination at the end of February, which further undermined the credibility of Hyannis’ proffered reason for terminating him, the court said.

While a jury could find Hyannis’ justification for firing Mr. Mercado was not pretextual based on this evidence, the court said it could not affirm such a determination made on a motion for summary judgment.

WorkCompCentral is a sister publication of Business Insurance. More stories here.