Last month, the Alabama Supreme Court allowed a dubious case to proceed against Austal, USA, LLC, even though it appeared to be barred by provisions of the Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”). Ex parte Austal USA, LLC, No. 1151138, 2017 WL 836567 (Ala. Mar. 3, 2017). Austal is a ship-builder in Mobile, and makes littoral combat ships for the United States Navy. The following article from AL.com provides some insight on the nature of the dispute: Austal Widow Maker Article
The employees in Ex parte Austal claimed that they were each injured by a “Miller saw.” According to AL.com, the Miller saw injured dozens of employees, and management began referring to it as the “widow maker.” But, claims against employers for employment-related injuries in the shipbuilding industry are usually barred by the LHWCA. There is an exception to that general rule: If an employer intentionally injures an employee, the claim is not barred by the LHWCA.
So, in an attempt to avoid the LHWCA, the employees claimed that Austal supplied them with the Miller saw “with the specific intent that it would cause injury” to them. The employees further claimed that Austal wanted to build its ships “without having to incur costs associated with finding a safer alternative method to perform the work.” Austal moved to dismiss the employees’ complaint, but a circuit court in Mobile found that those allegations were sufficient to fit within the LHWCA exception.
Austal appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Court found that it was constrained by the Rules of Civil Procedure. At the motion to dismiss stage, which occurs at the very beginning of a law suit, the rules require that the Court accept as true everything alleged in the employees’ complaint. Thus, the Court was forced to accept as true the allegation that Austal intentionally injured its employees.
The Court found the allegation “that a company would deliberately injury multiple specific employees … so shocking that it invites skepticism.” The Court also found that “a specific intent or desire to cause injury to its employees is not particularly consistent with the alleged cost-saving motivation for causing such injuries.” Nevertheless, the Court refused to dismiss the complaint, because “there is at least some possibility that those allegations are true.”
As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the case will proceed in Mobile County Circuit Court. The employees will be required to produce evidence of an actual intent to injure each of them. If they fail to produce such evidence, the trial court will most likely dismiss the case at the summary judgment stage. At that stage, the court is not required to believe the employee’s mere statement of facts. Instead, the employee must provide actual evidence of an intent to injure. If that evidence is lacking, the court can dismiss the case.