Ex parte The Salvation Army. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Roy Williams v. First Choice Personnel, LLC, and The Salvation Army)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 2/18/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2100033 Ex p a r t e The S a l v a t i o n Army PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Roy W i l l i a m s v. First Choice Personnel, L L C , and The S a l v a t i o n Army) (Etowah C i r c u i t Court, CV-07-900257) BRYAN, J u d g e . The S a l v a t i o n Army s e e k s Etowah C i r c u i t Court t o enter a w r i t o f mandamus o r d e r i n g t h e a summary j u d g m e n t i n i t s f a v o r 2100033 with respect Salvation t o Roy W i l l i a m s ' s Army contends that under the exclusive-remedy Compensation Act"). We Act, § grant Williams ("First Choice"), 2006, F i r s t Choice Army, a c l i e n t laborer claims against i t i s immune to i t . those p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Alabama 25-5-1 et the p e t i t i o n was tort employed s e q . , A l a . Code and i s s u e by First The claims Workers' 1 975 ("the the w r i t . Choice Personnel, LLC a temporary-employment agency. I n September a s s i g n e d W i l l i a m s t o w o r k f o r The S a l v a t i o n of F i r s t Choice. f o r The S a l v a t i o n A r m y W i l l i a m s w o r k e d as a f o r approximately general the next 10 w e e k s . On N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , W i l l i a m s was a l l e g e d l y i n j u r e d i n an a u t o m o b i l e accident while performing w o r k f o r The S a l v a t i o n Army. On October Salvation Army. compensation claims of Army. The other barred April 2, Williams Williams benefits negligence and a First filed an claim Choice, wantonness "the claims the e x c l u s i v i t y sued F i r s t alleged against S a l v a t i o n Army things, that by 2007, and for The The workers' a n d he against answer Choice alleged Salvation asserting, among i n [ W i l l i a m s ' s ] Complaint are provisions 9, 2 0 1 0 , The S a l v a t i o n A r m y f i l e d 2 of the ... Act." On a m o t i o n f o r a summary 2100033 j u d g m e n t , a s s e r t i n g t h a t i t was W i l l i a m s ' s under the provisions Act and, therefore, that of the Act bar W i l l i a m s ' s "special the tort employer" exclusive-remedy claims the t r i a l against The S a l v a t i o n Army. Following a hearing, court entered an o r d e r d e n y i n g The S a l v a t i o n A r m y ' s s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t motion. The S a l v a t i o n A r m y p e t i t i o n e d t h e s u p r e m e c o u r t mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l d i s m i s s i n g the t o r t barred the court ground then that c l a i m s on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h o s e petition claims are p r o v i s i o n s of the A c t . t r a n s f e r r e d the p e t i t i o n the of c o u r t t o e n t e r a summary j u d g m e n t under the exclusive-remedy supreme for a writ fell to this within this court The on court's jurisdiction. "A w r i t o f mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y , and i t will b e ' i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order s o u g h t ; 2 ) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o perform, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3 ) t h e lack of another adequate remedy; and 4 ) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e U n i t e d Serv. S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 S o . 2 d 5 0 1 , 503 ( A l a . 1993). A writ o f mandamus w i l l issue only i n s i t u a t i o n s where o t h e r r e l i e f i s u n a v a i l a b l e o r i s inadequate, a n d i t c a n n o t be u s e d as a s u b s t i t u t e for a p p e a l . E x p a r t e D r i l l P a r t s & S e r v . C o . , 590 So. 2 d 252 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " Ex p a r t e (Ala. Empire Fire & Marine I n s . Co., 1998). 3 720 So. 2d 893, 894 2100033 "In r e v i e w i n g the d i s p o s i t i o n of a motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t , 'we u t i l i z e t h e same s t a n d a r d a s the t r i a l court i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence b e f o r e [ i t ] made o u t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , ' B u s s e y v . J o h n D e e r e C o . , 531 So. 2 d 8 6 0 , 862 (Ala. 1 9 8 8 ) , a n d w h e t h e r t h e m o v a n t was ' e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . ' W r i g h t v. W r i g h t , 654 So. 2 d 542 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. When t h e m o v a n t m a k e s a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c r e a t i n g s u c h an i s s u e . B a s s v . S o u t h T r u s t B a n k o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2 d 7 9 4 , 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . Evidence i s 'substantial' i fi t is of 'such w e i g h t and q u a l i t y that fair-minded p e r s o n s i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t sought to be p r o v e d . ' W r i g h t , 654 So. 2 d a t 543 ( q u o t i n g W e s t v . F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2 d 87 0 , 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . Our review i s further s u b j e c t t o t h e c a v e a t t h a t t h i s C o u r t must r e v i e w the record in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s a g a i n s t t h e movant. Wilma Corp. v. F l e m i n g Foods o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 613 So. 2 d 359 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; H a n n e r s v . B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. 2 d 4 1 2 , 413 ( A l a . 19 9 0 ) . " Hobson (Ala. v. American petition Army Iron Pipe Co., 690 So. 2d 341, 344 1997). Initially, The Cast address for a writ Salvation moved immune we Army's for a from tort whether we o f mandamus, t h e t r i a l may court's summary-judgment m o t i o n . summary judgment liability on under 4 the the review, The ground by a denial of Salvation that i t is exclusive-remedy 2100033 provisions of the A c t . summary-judgment an e x c e p t i o n of So. motion 3 d 1 5 , 22 doctrine, department motions. of a immunity under DIRECTV, liability Ex p a r t e omitted) Wood, "those who mandamus petition grounded 36 (reviewing by the Noerr- petition any immune conduct," Sosa (9th C i r . 2006)). See ( A l a . 2002) 269 Ex p a r t e of a motion ( r e v i e w i n g by on S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y ) . Citing the denial Simpson, are generally f o rtheir petitioning 852 S o . 2 d 705 Auburn summary-judgment I n c . , 437 F . 3 d 9 2 3 , 929 Ex p a r t e review Ex p a r t e and immunity under which of a of immunity' i s interlocutory of the government f o r r e d r e s s from s t a t u t o r y also against (emphasis the denial concerning l e g i s l a t i v e on a c l a i m ( A l a .2008)." ( A l a . 2009) petition Pennington rule o f summary-judgment 6 S o . 3 d 4 7 8 , 483 mandamus v. 'grounded to the general the denial Univ., "Mandamus r e v i e w o f t h e d e n i a l South C a r o l i n a summary-judgment motion I n s u r a n c e C o . , 412 S o . 2 d ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) , W i l l i a m s a r g u e s t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f a summary- judgment motion grounded on exclusive-remedy provisions, immunity, case, a claim as o p p o s e d of immunity defendants, following 5 the t o some o t h e r t y p e s o f i s n o t r e v i e w a b l e b y mandamus certain under petition. the denial In of that their 2100033 summary-judgment motions, writ o f mandamus, a r g u i n g from the claims p e t i t i o n e d t h e supreme c o u r t petition, seeking and stating that to dismiss Construction Progress cannot supreme Carolina reviewed of motions Co., summary-judgment m o t i o n . immunity denied the a on appeal" substitute for A c c o r d i n g l y , W i l l i a m s has cases, Ex parte ( A l a . 1998), petition Those to dismiss, concerned parte 2003), our the issue two c a s e s unlike McCartney and Ex 869 S o . 2 d 4 5 9 ( A l a . which filed petition. the A c t . Ex concerned parte South the denial of to dismiss t o be i m m a t e r i a l 2 d 9 2 8 , 931 n.2 dismiss or a motion a o r a summary-judgment to the issue whether such d e n i a l may b e r e v i e w e d b y mandamus. S e e E x p a r t e H a r a l s o n , So. of However, whether a c l a i m o f immunity f o l l o w i n g a motion appears as b y a mandamus under Insurance denied court c a n be done used subsequent S e r v i c e s Corp., immunity denials be C o . , 720 S o . 2 d 910 court employer which t h e mandamus i n two Rail motion that 412 S o . 2 d a t 2 7 0 . However, The s u p r e m e them that " i t i s obvious that the defendants are "[m]andamus a motion is them. t o do b y mandamus appeal." the against that the Act provided fora ( A l a . 2003) 853 ("The d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o f o r a summary 6 a judgment g e n e r a l l y i s not 2100033 reviewable certain by a petition f o r writ narrow exceptions, such o f mandamus, as t h e i s s u e of subject to immunity."); C o m p a r e , e . g . , E x p a r t e B u t t s , 775 S o . 2 d 1 7 3 , 176 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) (reviewing immunity the d e n i a l of motion and S t a t e - a g e n t "a p e t i t i o n seeking Ex denial Wood, o f an o r d e r supra In l i g h t -- E x p a r t e (reviewing McCartney Services order and s t a t i n g denying o f a summary-judgment immunity). Rail immunity grounded denying Ex parte State generally that Corp. The a c l a i m of immunity"); and by the motion of the holdings Construction -- we conclude S a l v a t i o n Army's mandamus grounded petition on State-agent i n t h e more r e c e n t Co. a n d Ex p a r t e that the t r i a l summary-judgment b a s e d on i t s a s s e r t i o n o f i m m u n i t y u n d e r t h e provisions on f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s a n a p p r o p r i a t e means f o r review parte to dismiss supra; and Ex parte Progress court's motion exclusive-remedy o f t h e A c t i s s u b j e c t t o mandamus r e v i e w . Simpson, cases See a l s o Wood, supra. A c c o r d i n g l y , we d e n y W i l l i a m s ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e mandamus petition. In 793, Bechtel 795 employer's v. Crown ( A l a . 1984), Central Petroleum o u r supreme immunity under court Corp., concluded the exclusive-remedy 7 451 So. 2 d that an provisions of 2100033 the A c t i s an a f f i r m a t i v e to the p l e a d i n g its answer, The Salvation affirmative of the ... Act." S a l v a t i o n A r m y was defense before with generally defense by Williams required to plead particularity. the t r i a l pleaded that is subject Williams asserted stating by failing In the that "the by t h e e x c l u s i v i t y argues, however, that the exclusive-remedy contends, c o u r t , t h a t The S a l v a t i o n A r m y defense particularity, was Army i n [ W i l l i a m s ' s ] Complaint are barred provisions The and, t h e r e f o r e , r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. exclusive-remedy claims defense to as he did insufficiently plead i t with and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , argues W i l l i a m s , t h e d e f e n s e waived. In support defense cases of must pleaded be concerning supreme court has particularity. his the argument the with affirmative defense exclusive-remedy particularity, stated that estoppel R L I I n s . Co. v . MLK 925 S o . 2 d 9 1 4 , 9 2 5 - 2 6 that Williams of must cites estoppel. be pleaded Ave. Redevelopment ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ; Water Works Our with Corp., & Sewer Bd. o f W e t u m p k a v . C i t y o f W e t u m p k a , 773 S o . 2 d 4 6 6 , 469 ( A l a . 2000); Ex 2d parte (Ala. Luverne 1985); Geriatric C t r . , I n c . , 480 So. 562, 568 a n d K i m b r e l l v . C i t y o f B e s s e m e r , 380 S o . 2 d 8 3 8 , 8 2100033 839 ( A l a . 1980). including an A d d i t i o n a l l y , a l l averments a f f i r m a t i v e defense with particularity. v. Rule "affirmatively Committee is and f r a u d d e f e n s e s requires set forth" Comments be pleaded I n s . C o . , 903 S o . 2 d 7 6 9 , 7 8 2 - 8 3 ( A l a . However, e s t o p p e l 8(c) simply must fraud, R u l e 9 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; a n d P a t t e r s o n Liberty Nat'l Life 2004). of fraud, of that notwithstanding, a f f i r m a t i v e defenses in a responsive on t h e 1 9 7 3 A d o p t i o n must pleading. of Rule "Under t h i s r u l e t h e p r i m e p u r p o s e o f t o g i v e n o t i c e . ... 8 be The provide: pleadings fi "... U n d e r t h i s r u l e , 'plain n o t i c e ' of the nature of t h e defense b e i n g r a i s e d by t h e defendant i s a l l that i s required at the pleading stage. The f a c t s p e r t i n e n t t o t h e i r v a r i o u s c l a i m s and d e f e n s e s may be developed by discovery and pretrial procedures." In Brown v. B i l l y (Ala. 1980), factual supreme allegations affirmative court our Marlar must Chevrolet, court be I n c . , 381 S o . 2 d 191 addressed stated whether when defense of c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence. specific pleading Our supreme concluded: " W h i l e R u l e 8 ( c ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] p r o v i d e s that, 'In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively ... contributory negligence ...,' we o p i n e t h a t e x t e n s i v e factual 9 the 2100033 a l l e g a t i o n s o f c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e n e e d n o t be set o u t i n an a n s w e r . The answer h e r e i n g e n e r a l terms[, simply stating that the p l a i n t i f f was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t , ] i s s u f f i c i e n t under the Rule. C f . A m e r i c a n M o t o r i s t s I n s . Co. v . N a p o l i , 166 F . 2 d 24 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 4 8 ) . S e e a l s o 5 W r i g h t & Miller, F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e , C i v i l , § 12 7 4." 381 So. 2d a t 193. Similarly, i n Owings v. G u l l e t t , 2d 1 0 5 0 , 1053 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) , this court concluded a s u c c i n c t a s s e r t i o n of the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of limitations cases that complies and t h e s i m p l e with with assertion in that of the statute Rule 8(c). In l i g h t of requirements of Rule 8 ( c ) , we conclude the exclusive-remedy pleaded 437 S o . affirmative particularity. i t s answer The that defense need Salvation the not Army's defense those be plain applies was sufficient. We next Williams. submitted address another W i l l i a m s argues supplemental judgment motion. procedural that materials The argument Salvation i n support Therefore, W i l l i a m s argues, s h o u l d n o t have been c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d b y t h i s summary-judgment ultimately motion court. on A p r i l by untimely o f i t s summarythose materials c o u r t and s h o u l d The S a l v a t i o n Army f i l e d i t s 9, 2010. s c h e d u l e d a h e a r i n g on t h a t m o t i o n 10 Army raised The trial f o r August court 25, 2100033 2010. On August hearing, The 18, 2010, s e v e n Salvation summary-judgment reiteration in motion. The i t s summary-judgment Choice. April to strike filed. the supplement 24, filed never and the the a submission R o b e r t s o n , an o f f i c e r filed on the basis The of arguments. Salvation the to the previous On A u g u s t The S a l v a t i o n ' s on t h e p r e v i o u s day. of F i r s t a n d he a l s o that Army of the h i s response t h a t he m o v e d t o s t r i k e . filings as u n t i m e l y a hearing to i t was moved untimely deposition, T h e n e x t d a y , on filed day, a reply to responding to 25, 2010, W i l l i a m s moved t o Army's r e p l y t h a t had been On A u g u s t 2 5 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . T h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d i c a t e d whether Williams contends seven days before i t ruled that the hearing the on t h e m o t i o n s filing of and t h e f i l i n g 11 to summary-judgment submitted portions of Robertson's 2010, Williams's strike scheduled contained supplement of h i s response deposition Williams's the "supplement" 9, 2 0 1 0 , s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , motion, Williams August a 23, 2010, W i l l i a m s In support very motion testimony of Majorie On A u g u s t the filed before o f t h e a r g u m e n t s t h a t T h e S a l v a t i o n A r m y h a d made deposition the Army days to the held has strike. supplement of the reply the 2100033 day before the h e a r i n g That rule with a l l supporting served provides at least hearing," notice. of absent a parties Rule So. 826, 828 v. (Ala. for of summary Civ. briefs, shall the time fixed for consent to less than does not As Bank our of 10 be the days' the constitute prejudice. SouthTrust with P. judgment, before noncompliance 56(c)(2) showing motion i n c l u d i n g any days mere in Hilliard 2d (10) the stated "[t]he materials, However, requirement error that ten unless v i o l a t e d R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. notice reversible supreme Alabama, court N.A., 581 1991): "Once a p a r t y shows n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h the n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t , t h e p a r t y t h e n must show t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o comply w i t h that requirement. To d e m o n s t r a t e an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , t h e p a r t y n e e d o n l y come f o r t h w i t h any s h o w i n g t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f t h e f u l l 1 0 - d a y n o t i c e p e r i o d worked to h i s p r e j u d i c e . " See also P e e b l e s v. 392 (Ala. Even violated, t h a t he The was Mooresville Town C o u n c i l , So. 2d 388, 56(c)(2) was 2007). assuming, we without conclude prejudiced that by deciding, Williams the that has "'regardless of whether the 12 trial Rule failed noncompliance. S a l v a t i o n A r m y ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n , that, 985 establish I n h i s answer Williams court to to acknowledges d i d , or d i d not, 2100033 strike" the prevail on t h e s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . 23 n.7 the allegedly untimely (emphasis added). submission him. of Moreover, reiterated judgment further filed the the m a t e r i a l s , he i n the The a r g u m e n t s made e a r l i e r motion and submitted his response to the d i d not in i t s timely summary-judgment at that merely summary- deposition When W i l l i a m s to prejudice S a l v a t i o n Army Robertson's support of i t s arguments. answer seems t o c o n c e d e materials supplement, entitled Williams's Thus, W i l l i a m s disputed was in subsequently motion, he also s u b m i t t e d p o r t i o n s of Robertson's d e p o s i t i o n i n support of h i s arguments against entering a summary j u d g m e n t . we see Williams could do not supplement. day before arguments judgment the is motion. the The The hearing, made b y of the next whether under Regarding the filing We how Williams Williams have been p r e j u d i c e d S a l v a t i o n Army's that Accordingly, reply simply the responded i n h i s response clearly the filed reply by suffered to to the no prejudice the summaryby reply. address the substantive issue in this case: S a l v a t i o n A r m y i s immune t o W i l l i a m s ' s tort claims the exclusive-remedy p r o v i s i o n s of the A c t . exclusive remedy when an 13 employee is "[T]he injured in Act an 2100033 accident the proximately employee was resulting engaged from, and t h a t i n , the actual performance duties of h i s or h e r employment." Health C a r e A u t h o r i t y , 850 S o . 2 d 3 3 2 , 338 25-5-52 and - 5 3 , A l a . Code 1975. Choice, as "general employer." client Act, a Ex while of the Shelby County ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ; s e e §§ agency, is that First Williams's The S a l v a t i o n A r m y a r g u e s t h a t i t , a s t h e Choice, i . e . , that parte I t i s undisputed temporary-employment of F i r s t occurred i s also Williams's i t i s Williams's employer under the " s p e c i a l employer." I f The S a l v a t i o n Army i s W i l l i a m s ' s s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r , t h e n W i l l i a m s ' s tort claims provisions against of the A c t . would have a g a i n s t rights (Ala. Hicks 1993), v. That by the exclusive-remedy i s , any p o t e n t i a l c l a i m Williams The S a l v a t i o n A r m y w o u l d b e l i m i t e d and remedies In i t are barred provided Alabama to the by t h e A c t . Power o u r supreme c o u r t Co., 623 recited So. 2d 1050, the a p p l i c a b l e law: "In T e r r y v. Read S t e e l P r o d u c t s , 430 S o . 2 d 8 6 2 , 865 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , t h i s C o u r t f i r s t h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t c o u l d be a ' s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r ' u n d e r [ t h e ] Act, and be held responsible for worker's compensation b u t immune from t o r t liability for i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d b y an e m p l o y e e . We a d o p t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e - p r o n g e d t e s t t o d e t e r m i n e who i s a ' s p e c i a l employer': "'When a g e n e r a l e m p l o y e r 14 lends 1052 an employee 2100033 to a s p e c i a l employer, the s p e c i a l employer becomes l i a b l e f o r workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n only i f "'(a) t h e employee h a s made a contract of hire, express or implied, with the special employer; "'(b) t h e work e s s e n t i a l l y that employer; and being done i s of the s p e c i a l "'(c) t h e s p e c i a l employer has the r i g h t t o c o n t r o l t h e d e t a i l s of t h e work. "'When a l l t h r e e o f t h e a b o v e c o n d i t i o n s are satisfied in relation to both employers, both employers are l i a b l e f o r workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n ' " T e r r y , 430 S o . 2 d a t 8 6 5 , q u o t i n g 1C A. L a r s o n , Law o f W o r k m e n ' s C o m p e n s a t i o n , § 48 (1980)." Williams court prongs 430 that S o . 2 d 862 ( A l a . 1983); performed however, there the details whether the t r i a l the second and t h i r d v. Read appears Steel t o b e no c a s e was e s s e n t i a l l y Products, dispute that of The S a l v a t i o n A r m y h a d t h e r i g h t o f h i s work. Williams before The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e i n this S a l v a t i o n Army and t h a t control he c o n c e d e d s e t out i n Terry t h o s e two f a c t o r s . work W i l l i a m s to that The S a l v a t i o n A r m y s a t i s f i e d of the test concerning The acknowledges The The p a r t i e s had a c o n t r a c t 15 for hire dispute, with The 2100033 Salvation Army. The contract for hire contract Salvation existed, but Army c o n t e n d s Williams that argues an that implied no such existed. In s e v e r a l c a s e s , Alabama a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have a d d r e s s e d the issue whether were s p e c i a l (Ala. clients employers. C i v . App. 1995), of temporary-employment In Key v. Maytag this court Corp., discussed the 671 agencies So. 2 d law in area: "The s u p r e m e c o u r t h a s p r e v i o u s l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a ' s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r - e m p l o y e e ' r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s when the g e n e r a l employer i s an e m p l o y m e n t a g e n c y or employment s e r v i c e which f u r n i s h e s employees under contract, 'such as Kelly Services, Inc., or M a n p o w e r , I n c . ' H i c k s v . A l a b a m a P o w e r C o . , 623 So. 2 d 1050 ( A l a . 1993). See M a r l o w v . M i d - S o u t h T o o l C o . , 535 So. 2 d 120 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ; B e c h t e l v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 495 So. 2d 1052 (Ala. 1 9 8 6 ) ; P e t t a w a y v . M o b i l e P a i n t M f g . C o . , 467 So. 2 d 228 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; T e r r y [ v . R e a d S t e e l P r o d s . , 430 So. 2 d 862 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ] . " I n H i c k s a n d G a u t v . M e d r a n o , 630 So. 2 d 362 (Ala. 1993), t h e supreme c o u r t expounded on i t s previous holdings concerning the e x i s t e n c e of a special employer-employee relationship when the g e n e r a l e m p l o y e r i s an e m p l o y m e n t a g e n c y o r s e r v i c e . It specifically found that under these c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e e m p l o y e e h a d an i m p l i e d c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r . In H i c k s , t h e supreme court s t a t e d : "'In these cases [concerning temporaryemployment a g e n c i e s or employment-placement a g e n c i e s ] , t h e g e n e r a l e m p l o y e r was n o t h i n g 16 96 this 2100033 more than the bargaining agent or e m p l o y m e n t a g e n t f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s . When those p l a i n t i f f s contacted K e l l y Services, M a n p o w e r , o r Pep S e r v i c e s , i t was n o t f o r the purpose of e n t e r i n g i n t o employment w i t h those companies t o do t h e w o r k o f those companies; rather, the plaintiffs intended f o r the general employers to "market" them t o s e c u r e employment with another, special employer. Once those p l a i n t i f f s were p r e s e n t e d by t h e employment s e r v i c e s to the s p e c i a l employers, those p l a i n t i f f s then e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t of h i r e with those s p e c i a l employers.' "[623 671 So. 2d at 100. 2d In of So. Key, this Temporary special noted court determined that Resources, employer salient present 1054-55.]" in under facts Chef, a temporary-employment the A c t . cases case finding that clients a agency, In i t s a n a l y s i s , present i n that earlier Magic this had of client was a court also been temporary- e m p l o y m e n t a g e n c i e s t o be s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r s : " I t i s u n d i s p u t e d that Key Resources Chef. and applied for and Temporary Magic Chef Temporary In Gaut that temporary paid Resources v. Medrano, supreme c o u r t succinctly employment Resources Resources paid but 630 So. 2d explained: 17 Temporary a s s i g n e d him Temporary Key, with for his at a l e s s e r 362, 366 to Magic services rate." Id. ( A l a . 1993), our 2100033 " ' T e r r y v . R e a d S t e e l ... a n d t h r e e o f t h e c a s e s f o l l o w i n g i t [Means v. I n t e r n a t i o n a l S y s t e m s , I n c . , 555 So. 2 d 142 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; M a r l o w v . M i d S o u t h T o o l Co., 535 So. 2 d 120 ( A l a . 1 98 8 ) ; a n d P e t t a w a y v . M o b i l e P a i n t M f g . C o . , 467 So. 2 d 228 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , ] have involved general employers that were unambiguously temporary employment placement agencies. T e r r y and P e t t a w a y were p l a c e d w i t h t h e i r special employers by Manpower, I n c . ; Marlow, by K e l l y S e r v i c e s , I n c . ; and Means, by L o n g ' s T e m p o r a r y Services, Inc. In such cases, the employee a p p l i e s to the general employer f o r the s p e c i f i c purpose of t e m p o r a r y p l a c e m e n t w i t h s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r s and t h u s n e c e s s a r i l y agrees to a c o n t r a c t of h i r e with the s p e c i a l employer." The which facts an between implied the employee. Williams As in this contract client First case of a he Choice assigned Williams for The Accordingly, there Williams The prong of and the substantially been situation in found labor was for clients was "bargaining Key, 671 Salvation an implied Salvation Terry similar Army, test. to of F i r s t The those 18 f o r The Army So. thus facts of the hired this typical First and control. for hire satisfying or Army, i t s an Choice. 2d a t 100. under of and agent" Salvation contract exist agency, the to work to agency Choice, a temporary-employment First worked typical temporary-employment "employment a g e n t " of W i l l i a m s . Choice a has for hire to perform general such, reflect between the case first are temporary- 2100033 employment that the cases other Accordingly, Williams's two of As noted, Terry that determine the there test The i s no were dispute satisfied. Salvation Army was suggest that s p e c i a l employer. d i d not cites have S e v e r a l of those that above. prongs we Williams he cited s e v e r a l f a c t o r s t h a t he a contract for hire with says The S a l v a t i o n Army. f a c t o r s h i g h l i g h t the employment r e l a t i o n s h i p Williams had with t h a t t h e r e was not an e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n and The First S a l v a t i o n Army. Choice he "worked evidence indicating that employee of Choice. whether under Williams's himself general Williams the that example, W i l l i a m s stating Williams's Terry an also test, special t o be he employer. was attempt For testimony First i n an an own Choice" as First to be Choice an was However, the p e r t i n e n t i s s u e i s employee employer. of his himself Clearly, suggest Williams notes First considered i . e . , whether employee for to of The Whether First The Salvation S a l v a t i o n Army Williams Choice does not Army was considered alter our analysis. Similarly, time sheet certain limiting the provisions scope 19 of contained his on employment Williams's with The 2100033 Salvation A r m y do n o t n e g a t e h i s s t a t u s Salvation Army. recited terms Salvation For example, contained S a l v a t i o n Army c o u l d without obtaining in Terry, a similar (Ala. v. M o b i l e a provision a time First provision sheet, Choice stating that Paint (holding So. 2d at The t o d r i v e an a u t o m o b i l e However, f o r h i r e was d e t e r m i n e d t o e x i s t 430 which a n d The F i r s t Choice's written permission. provision. 1985) between not allow Williams a contract Pettaway Williams's of the agreement Army, a s a n e m p l o y e e o f The 864, 866. despite See also M f g . C o . , 467 S o . 2 d 2 2 8 , 2 2 8 , 230 that a contract requiring written for hire existed permission from employment agency b e f o r e t h e employee c o u l d despite the temporary- handle v e h i c l e s or machinery). Williams involving similar that a contract that First before also factors, factors court him t o The has found to other clients. a cases determination assigned him t o other Salvation had Army. for hire notes clients However, our t o e x i s t when previously See P e t t a w a y , 20 i n other For example, W i l l i a m s a contract agency that, d i d not prevent Choice had p r e v i o u s l y temporary-employment employee on forhire existed. assigning supreme relies 467 assigned a an S o . 2 d a t 228 2100033 ("On several occasions, Manpower jobsites f o r the purpose Williams also contends that w h i c h he w o r k e d was formed. a contract Pettaway providing the roughly for hire this fact different temporary labor."). that a contract f o r i s unpersuasive has been found t o e x i s t because i n cases i n which a t e m p o r a r y e m p l o y e e h a s b e e n on t h e j o b f o r a s l i t t l e three 24 days, Marlow v. M i d South Tool (Ala. 1988), Lastly, t h a t was n o t p r e s e n t e d court cannot the first Co., 612 allegedly single grant So. new her controlled evidence relief to the t r i a l based 2d 40 9, 410 "argument" Williams's i s not i n support indicating an court. 21 An appellate for Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l In t h i s argument that The case, but i n Robertson's that a deposition, Salvation i t was the rather The S a l v a t i o n A r m y c i t e s o f i t s argument The an a r g u m e n t t o t h i s ( A l a . 1992 ) . pay r a t e . that on an a r g u m e n t p r e s e n t e d statement contained testimony contention presented time to the a p p e l l a t e court. factual namely 467 S o . 2 d a t 2 2 9 - 2 3 . we b r i e f l y a d d r e s s W i l l i a m s ' s court t i m e as C o . , 535 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 2 ¬ o r two w e e k s , P e t t a w a y , S a l v a t i o n Army has i m p e r m i s s i b l y during i s a relatively brief a determination However, to 10-week p e r i o d f o r The S a l v a t i o n A r m y p e r i o d that weighs against hire of sent Army that Williams's 2100033 special employer, an argument presented to the t r i a l on t h i s i s s u e h a s no In conclusion, petition court. that The Therefore, Salvation Williams's Army argument merit. we deny W i l l i a m s ' s f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. motion to dismiss the The m a t e r i a l f a c t s e s t a b l i s h t h a t The S a l v a t i o n A r m y was W i l l i a m s ' s s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r w i t h i n the meaning of the A c t . provisions of the Williams's tort The under the exclusive-remedy Salvation Accordingly, we f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus, the t r i a l Salvation A c t , The claims. Army's p e t i t i o n direct Therefore, court Army to enter with Army is immune grant The S a l v a t i o n issue the writ, to and a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f respect to Williams's tort claims against i t . PETITION Thompson, concur. GRANTED; WRIT P . J . , and ISSUED. Pittman, 22 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.