Watson v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES
2011 Del. LEXIS 569
| Del. | 2011Background
- Watson suffered a May 2007 back injury while employed by Wal-Mart as a laborer.
- Post-surgery (Aug 2008) Watson's doctors limited him to sedentary or light work with a 20-pound lifting restriction.
- Wal-Mart petitioned to terminate Watson's total disability benefits in Dec. 2008; Board terminated in Oct. 2009; Superior Court affirmed in Jun. 2010.
- Watson applied for 28 jobs (online and in person) with disclosure of disability; received two adverse responses for disability.
- Vocational case manager Reno testified there were 9 jobs within Watson's restrictions; stated 16 applications were within restrictions.
- Board found Watson's job search inadequate and that there were available jobs; court reversed, remanding for action consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Watson is a displaced worker given his job search | Watson is displaced due to inability to secure work from disability. | Wal-Mart showed no actually available jobs within Watson's restrictions. | Yes, Watson is displaced. |
| Whether a labor market survey establishes actual availability | Survey shows some available jobs; Watson applied and was denied. | Survey alone proves existence of jobs, not actual availability. | Survey alone insufficient to prove availability. |
| What standard governs the employer's burden to show availability | Employer must show actual availability and willingness to hire. | Employer can rely on survey to demonstrate availability. | Employer must prove actual availability and willingness to hire; survey not conclusive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ham v. Chrysler Corporation, 231 A.2d 258 (Del. 1967) (displaced worker doctrine and weighing medical/wage-loss factors)
- Franklin Fabricators v. Irwin, 306 A.2d 734 (Del. 1973) (burden shifting in displaced worker analysis)
- Keeler v. Metal Masters Foodservice Equipment Co., 712 A.2d 1004 (Del. 1998) (inference of disability-based denial when limitations disclosed)
- Adams v. Shore Disposal, Inc., 720 A.2d 272 (Del. 1998) (labor market surveys; contemporaneous availability needed)
- Chrysler Corporation v. Duff, 314 A.2d 915 (Del. 1973) (employer must show actual availability to overcome displacement)