Lambert v. LQ Management, L.L.C.
2013 Ark. 114
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Lambert sued LQ Management in state court alleging retaliation for filing workers’ compensation benefits claim under §16-118-107.
- Case was removed to federal court; defendant moved to dismiss arguing §11-9-107 extinguished the claim as exclusive remedy.
- Lambert argued §16-118-107 provides independent civil remedies for felonious conduct and compensates additional damages.
- The Supreme Court certified the question to determine whether §16-118-107 revives common-law retaliation actions despite §11-9-107.
- Act 796 (1993) codified §11-9-107 to preserve exclusive remedy and eliminate common-law retaliation actions; a Legislative Declaration reaffirmed this intent.
- §16-118-107 (1997) created a separate civil action for crime victims but does not expressly repeal or revive the workers’ comp retaliation remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §16-118-107 revive common-law retaliation actions? | Lambert: §16-118-107 creates independent remedies and allows additional damages. | LQ Management: §11-9-107 exclusive remedy remains; §16-118-107 does not repeal or modify it. | No; §16-118-107 does not revive the common-law retaliation remedy. |
| Are the two statutes harmonizable to permit additional damages under §16-118-107? | Lambert: harmonization permits additional remedies for felonious-retaliation conduct. | LQ Management: remedies are exclusive and mutually exclusive by subject matter. | No; exclusive-remedy doctrine governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Dillmeier Enterprises, Inc., 330 Ark. 545 (1997) (interprets §11-9-107 to preserve exclusive remedy and eliminate common-law remedies)
- Winston v. Robinson, 270 Ark. 996 (1980) (repeal by implication requires irreconcilable conflict)
- Searcy Farm, Supply, LLC v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 369 Ark. 487 (2007) (specialized statute governs over general statute)
- Comcast of Little Rock, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 2011 Ark. 431 (2011) (strict construction of statutes; specific over general)
- Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Richard’s Honda Yamaha, 344 Ark. 44 (2001) (plain meaning governs when statute is clear)