## Facts

- Dorothy Frampton worked for Central Indiana Gas Company and injured her arm on the job.
- The employer and its insurer paid her medical expenses and continued her full salary during four months of disability.
- Frampton alleged the employer and insurer did not inform her of additional benefits potentially available under workers’ compensation.
- After returning to work and performing satisfactorily, the employer and insurer were notified about 19 months after the injury that she had a 30% loss of use of her arm.
- Frampton filed a workers’ compensation claim and received a settlement, despite fearing job loss.
- About one month after the settlement, the company discharged her without giving a reason.
- Frampton sued in civil court alleging she was fired in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether an at-will employee states a claim for relief by alleging she was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation (or occupational disease) claim.
2. Whether the workers’ compensation statute’s prohibition on any “device” relieving an employer of statutory obligations supports a tort remedy for retaliatory discharge.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court held that Frampton stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The Court recognized retaliatory discharge for filing a workers’ compensation claim as an intentional, wrongful act contrary to public policy.
- The Court reversed the dismissal under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Although employment of indefinite duration is generally terminable at will, the doctrine is limited where termination contravenes clear public policy expressed by statute.
- The workers’ compensation laws create a right to compensation for work-related injuries and impose a corresponding duty on employers (through insurance) to provide that compensation.
- Statutory language barring any “device” that relieves an employer of obligations under the workers’ compensation act is violated by threats of discharge or discharge used to deter claims.
- An employee alleging retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation or occupational disease benefits may pursue an independent tort action for damages, not confined to the administrative compensation system.

## Conclusion

Indiana recognized a tort cause of action for employees fired for filing workers’ compensation claims, treating such retaliation as a public-policy violation that limits the at-will employment rule and permits recovery of damages.


Frampton v. Cent. Ind. Gas Co., 297 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. 1973)