Chong Fan v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/11/2013 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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, 2012-2013 2110601 Chong Fan v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (CV-10-1383) Court PER CURIAM. Chong F a n a p p e a l s Court ("the t r i a l from a judgment o f t h e Madison court") dismissing h i s complaint Circuit against 2110601 Qualitest Pharmaceuticals. We a f f i r m i n p a r t and r e v e r s e i n part. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y On S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 , Fan f i l e d i n t h e t r i a l complaint against Q u a l i t e s t . The c o m p l a i n t " Cause: B r e a c h o f C o n s t i t u t i o n , p r o t e c t i o n and t o r t s l a w " Issue and stated: contract, worker requests: "1. To j u d g e t h a t b r e a c h o f C o n s t i t u t i o n P r o t e c t i o n and R i g h t s o f a l i e n s ' "2. To judge that breach ' C o n s e q u e n t i a l Damages' "3. To 'Wages Cause' court a of on ' E q u a l Contract on j u d g e t h a t b r e a c h o f W o r k e r P r o t e c t i o n on and H o u r s o f W o r k , D i s c h a r g e f o r P r o p e r "4. To j u d g e t h a t b r e a c h o f T o r t s Law on ' I n f l i c t i o n of M e n t a l D i s t r e s s ' "5. To j u d g e t h a t damage o f USD $500,000 " Facts: "On A p r . 1 0 t h , 2010 S a t u r d a y , p l a i n t i f f Chong Fan was s i c k and went t o s e e Dr. B e n j a m i n F a v i s i n AFC ( A m e r i c a n F a m i l y C a r e ) . He s u g g e s t e d ' P l e a s e e x c u s e Mr. Fan f r o m w o r k on 04/12/2010'. Chong Fan went t o see Dr. J a t i n d e r S a c h d e v i n AFC on 04/13/2010, she suggested ' O f f work 04/13/10 - 04/16/10'. Then p l a i n t i f f Chong Fan gave e m p l o y e r t h e d o c t o r ' s n o t e . 2 2110601 "April 19, 2010, Monday, Chong Fan was orally i n f o r m e d t o be f i r e d , b u t w i t h o u t any o f f i c i a l termination letters. II "The r e a s o n s t o f i r e Chong Fan Mr. J a b e r Qasem w e r e : t o l d by Sr. Director " 1 . You d o n ' t r e s p e c t Mr. Fang Zhou b e c a u s e you d i d n ' t a g r e e w i t h y o u ' r e [ s i c ] a n n u a l r e v i e w made by Fang Zhou and d i d n ' t s i g n y o u r name. "2. You f r o m 5pm c a n ' t work on t h e 2nd t o 5am) on weekend. shift (night shift "Reasons: " I am an a l i e n C h i n e s e w i t h G r e e n C a r d w o r k e d i n Q u a l i t e s t P h a r m a c e u t i c a l s , USA, f o r l o n g t i m e and o v e r t i m e work, w i t h o u t any o v e r t i m e p a i d . Once f i r e d , l a c k l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n s , l a c k p l e a d i n g ways, l a c k Union. Plead with Court f o r judge." (Bold typeface i n original.) On November 5, the 2010, Q u a l i t e s t f i l e d a motion to complaint for f a i l u r e could be granted. state f a c t s to claim Qualitest argued that support a claim emotional d i s t r e s s . contract t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h of intentional and that f a i l e d because the the had relief failed to infliction of Q u a l i t e s t a l s o argued t h a t the b r e a c h - o f complaint f a i l e d t h a t a c o n t r a c t e x i s t e d o r t o a l l e g e any claim Fan dismiss claims of 3 "Breach to allege o t h e r element of of Constitution that and 2110601 Breach of Worker P r o t e c t i o n " a c t i o n under Alabama l a w . n o t met On A u g u s t A h e a r i n g was the t r i a l court his recognized causes of Q u a l i t e s t a l s o a r g u e d t h a t Fan the requirements of n o t i c e A l a . R. C i v . P . motion. were n o t 1, 2011, pleading had under Rule 8 ( a ) , Fan f i l e d a r e p l y t o h e l d on S e p t e m b e r 9, 2011, e n t e r e d an o r d e r g i v i n g Fan that a f t e r which 14 d a y s t o amend complaint. On S e p t e m b e r 26, 2011, Fan f i l e d a " R e p l y " i n r e s p o n s e t o the t r i a l court's order. Fan r e s t a t e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n h i s o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t and added a s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d "Case Compare and A n a l y s i s " of his case. i n w h i c h he compared c e r t a i n c a s e s t o t h e The first s e t of cases Fan discussed facts in his r e p l y were l i s t e d u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g " B r e a c h o f C o n t r a c t . " that section, Fan stated that he had been d i s c h a r g e d f o r seeking w o r k e r s ' compensation second "Breach that s e t of cases d i s c u s s e d were l i s t e d of Worker P r o t e c t i o n . " Qualitest In that wrongfully benefits. under section, In the Fan 1 The heading stated had v i o l a t e d t h e F a i r L a b o r S t a n d a r d s A c t , 29 A l t h o u g h t h e h e a d i n g was "Breach of Contract," the s u b s t a n c e o f h i s c l a i m was a c t u a l l y a r e t a l i a t o r y - d i s c h a r g e c l a i m b a s e d on h i s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he h a d b e e n d i s c h a r g e d f o r having f i l e d a w o r k e r s ' compensation c l a i m . 1 4 2110601 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and that he had e x e r c i s i n g h i s r i g h t s under t h a t a c t . discussed were Constitution." "fired" listed under Torts Law." s u f f e r e d an In set of heading w e l l as h i s had that section, Fan heading stated been was f o u r t h and under the of an final "Breach that he had on h i s a n n u a l r e v i e w and due o v e r t i m e wage" arguing renewed i t s motion t h a t Fan's " r e p l y " was serve the reply on to dismiss untimely Qualitest. argued t h a t the b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t on October 5, and t h a t Fan Qualitest had again c l a i m f a i l e d because i t d i d n o t a l l e g e t h a t a c o n t r a c t e x i s t e d o r a l l e g e any o t h e r element of t h a t c l a i m , t h a t the c l a i m s of "Breach of C o n s t i t u t i o n " " B r e a c h o f W o r k e r P r o t e c t i o n " were n o t action as discharge. Qualitest to were l i s t e d The cases "Breach s t a t e d t h a t he have b e e n . for i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n of e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s t o "work d i s p u t e s failed third u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o r w h i c h an e m p l o y e e who set of cases d i s c u s s e d 2011, The the I n t h a t s e c t i o n , Fan American n a t i o n a l would not of been d i s c h a r g e d under Alabama law, and requirements of n o t i c e p l e a d i n g 5 causes of met the u n d e r R u l e 8 ( a ) , A l a . R. Civ. that recognized and Fan had not 2110601 P. On M a r c h 13, 2 0 1 2 , t h e t r i a l court entered an order stating: "On S e p t e m b e r 9, 2 0 1 1 , a f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s , t h i s c o u r t e n t e r e d an O r d e r f o r [ F a n ] t o f i l e an amended c o m p l a i n t . On S e p t e m b e r 26, 2 0 1 1 , [ F a n ] d i d f i l e an amended c o m p l a i n t . However, [ F a n ] f a i l e d t o t i m e l y s e r v e [ Q u a l i t e s t ] w i t h t h e Amended C o m p l a i n t . On O c t o b e r 5, 2 0 1 1 , [ Q u a l i t e s t ] f i l e d a Renewed M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 8 a n d 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) [ , A l a . R. Civ. P.]. " A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e amended c o m p l a i n t t h e C o u r t is of the opinion that i t i s insufficient; therefore, i t i s hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED a n d DECREED that this action i s DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, c o s t s t o be t a x e d as p a i d . " (Capitalization his notice i n original.) of appeal t o t h i s On M a r c h 26, 2012, Fan f i l e d court. This court transferred t h e a p p e a l t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t f o r l a c k o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , and t h a t c o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y the appeal back t o t h i s transferred court, pursuant t o § 12-2-7(6), A l a . Code 1975. On appeal, Fan a r g u e s dismissing h i s complaint. from a t r i a l that the t r i a l court erred i n "The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w upon a p p e a l court's order dismissing a complaint f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f may be g r a n t e d i s w h e t h e r , when t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t a r e v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y 6 2110601 in his favor, the plaintiff could c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h w o u l d e n t i t l e him Harrelson, 8(a), 532 Ala. So. 2d 1256, R. Civ. P., pleading which sets forth original claim, 1256 claim, shall (1) c l a i m showing t h a t the p l e a d e r a demand for judgment for So. 2d 1097, 1104 the (Ala. relief, state." 1986). whether or "A an third-party the pleader S u r r e n c y v. Therefore, defendants sufficient. In the on notice of the claim, the the and (2) seeks." Harbison, even c o m p l a i n t i s i n a r t f u l l y drawn, so l o n g as t h e c o m p l a i n t the Rule p l a i n statement of relief v. part: i s e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f , "Alabama i s a ' n o t i c e p l e a d i n g ' 489 1988) . for and of Martin pertinent cross-claim, a short set to r e l i e f . " in claim counterclaim, contain any ( A l a . C i v . App. provides, a prove i f a places complaint is is sufficient to Id. present case, Fan's complaint p l a c e Q u a l i t e s t on n o t i c e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c l a i m s : (1) a c l a i m f o r overtime b e n e f i t s under the U.S.C. § 201 for e x e r c i s i n g h i s r i g h t s under the F a i r Labor Standards A c t , and a origin. claim seq., (2) 29 a retaliatory-discharge claim (3) et F a i r Labor Standards Act, a l l e g i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n based Further, on his national Fan's a l l e g a t i o n s , " v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y i n 7 2110601 his favor ... w o u l d e n t i t l e h i m t o r e l i e f . " Martin, 532 So. 2d a t 1256. Fan having also filed claims h i s employment was a workers' compensation c o m p l a i n t s h o u l d n o t be d i s m i s s e d unless can terminated claim. for his Although " [ a ] for failure to state a claim i t appears beyond r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f p r o v e no s e t o f f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f h i s c l a i m t h a t entitle him t o r e l i e f Morton v. P r e s c o t t , court should complaint, u n d e r some c o g n i z a b l e theory would of law," 564 So. 2d 913, 916 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , a trial seek t o determine whether t h e a l l e g a t i o n i n t h e and t h e r e a s o n a b l e give r i s e to a cognizable inferences legal claim. arising therefrom, Morton i s i l l u s t r a t i v e here. The H. plaintiff Prescott, psychiatrist, i n M o r t o n , A l l e n F. M o r t o n , s u e d Dr. C e c i l alleging had that Dr. negligently Prescott, discharged P e n d a r v i s H u n t e r , who t h e n a s s a u l t e d M o r t o n . trial court Prescott's dismissed arguments Morton's that the complaint facts who a was patient named I d . a t 914. based alleged in a on The Dr. Morton's c o m p l a i n t h a d f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t Dr. P r e s c o t t h a d owed M o r t o n a d u t y o r , a s s u m i n g t h a t s u c h a d u t y e x i s t e d , t h a t Dr. 8 2110601 Prescott had affirming court that breached the first the that dismissal explained duty. Id. of Morton's In its complaint, our t h a t "a p l a i n t i f f must p l e a d [ p s y c h i a t r i s t ] knew or should analysis supreme and h a v e known that a g g r e s s o r m i g h t be a d a n g e r t o a s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l . " 916. The failed court to described meet prove Id. at then determined t h a t Morton's complaint that standard. M o r t o n ' s c o m p l a i n t as Id. The an supreme had court follows: "A r e v i e w of the complaint supports [Dr.] P r e s c o t t ' s argument t h a t M o r t o n f a i l s t o a l l e g e t h a t H u n t e r had made any s p e c i f i c t h r e a t t o harm M o r t o n . A t most t h e c o m p l a i n t s t a t e s t h a t H u n t e r was a v i o l e n t , d a n g e r o u s p e r s o n who p o s e d a d a n g e r t o t h e c i t i z e n s o f t h e community, i n c l u d i n g M o r t o n . E v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t a l l o f t h e s e f a c t s and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e t r u e , t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a r e s t i l l i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show a l e g a l d u t y on t h e p a r t o f [ D r . ] P r e s c o t t to p r o t e c t M o r t o n f r o m s p e c i f i c harm." Id. at 915. Similarly, Fan's factual allegations, s t a t e d i n h i s o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t and his given 12, Fan Fan 2010, had s e e n two "doctor's to April physicians, notes" excusing 16, 2010, that first had b e e n s i c k , those p h y s i c i a n s Fan that Fan f r o m work f r o m Fan had provided d o c t o r s ' n o t e s t o Q u a l i t e s t , and t h a t Q u a l i t e s t had 9 he subsequently restated i n " R e p l y , " i n d i c a t e t h a t , i n A p r i l 2010, that which had April the terminated 2110601 h i s employment. Fan p r o v i d e d L a t e r , i n the s e c t i o n of h i s "Reply" i n which c a s e c o m p a r i s o n s , Fan stated: " [ F a n ] was e m p l o y e d by Q u a l i t e s t Pharmaceutical. [ F a n ] was s i c k and m i s s [ e d ] a s u b s t a n t i a l p e r i o d o f work. When [ F a n ] s o u g h t workers' compensation benefits ( t o have g i v e n [ Q u a l i t e s t ] t h e doctor's n o t e ) , [ F a n ] was f i r e d . [ F a n ] s u e d Q u a l i t e s t f o r wrongful discharge." Although Fan states i n that paragraph that w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s , " he q u a l i f i e s when he a d d s , was sick, absence he work, provided and that Q u a l i t e s t notes excusing his he his was terminated Fan does n o t a l l e g e t h a t he was o r t h a t he s u f f e r s f r o m an o c c u p a t i o n a l appears i n h i s p l e a d i n g s , t o h i s work. 554, facie 571 (indicating case of r e t a l i a t o r y things, a work-related does n o t t r u l y a l l e g e t h a t he c l a i m ; the f i l i n g totally unrelated 854 So. to e s t a b l i s h a a plaintiff injury). filed i n j u r e d a t work v. A l d r i d g e , that discharge, from d i s e a s e ; from a l l t h a t Fan's i l l n e s s was See A l a b a m a Power Co. ( A l a . 2002) among o t h e r statement Fan a l l e g e s o n l y t h a t he m i s s e d work b e c a u s e that from employment. that "sought i n a p a r e n t h e t i c a l , t h a t he gave Q u a l i t e s t t h e doctors' notes. he he prima must show, Furthermore, a workers' 10 Fan compensation o f s u c h a c l a i m i s an e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t a retaliatory-discharge claim. 2d See Thomas v. B a k e r s of Indus., 2110601 a Div. App. of Sonoco P r o d . 1999). respects Co., to plead any So. 2d 469, c o m p l a i n t and Thus, t h e 737 the "Reply" f a i l set of facts under 471 (Ala. which Civ. in a l l Fan could p o s s i b l y p r e v a i l on a r e t a l i a t o r y - d i s c h a r g e c l a i m b a s e d on h i s having f i l e d a w o r k e r s ' compensation c l a i m against Q u a l i t e s t . Although permit this state pleadings permits that lack notice any pleading, factual basis c l a i m c o u l d r e s t t o s t a t e a cause of a c t i o n . the trial Fan's court's claim judgment to alleging the extent retaliation for i t does upon w h i c h Thus, we that his not i t a affirm dismissed having filed a complaint f o r w o r k e r s ' compensation b e n e f i t s . Finally, tort the of Fan's outrage. He termination however, t h a t of to Williams, So. to 21 the includes based t h i s his causing insufficient regard complaint c l a i m on employment. an a claim This work 1240 dispute, conduct t h a t would r i s e court has employee t o l o s e h i s or her 1234, to the tort-of-outrage claim. a l l e g a t i o n s t o be t r u e and claim. ( A l a . C i v . App. Fan See has level id. failed and held, job is Thomas v. 2008). to With allege any necessary to support ("Assuming capable of b e i n g 11 the a work d i s p u t e support a tort-of-outrage 3d alleging a Thomas's s u p p o r t e d by the 2110601 e v i d e n c e , we c a n n o t s a y t h a t W i l l i a m s ' s l e v e l a t which our c o u r t s have a l l o w e d of involving outrage, i . e . , cases conduct rose t o the recovery f o r the t o r t misconduct in a burial, s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t o r a s s a u l t , o r b a r b a r i c methods o f c o e r c i n g an insurance Based settlement."). on the foregoing, we affirm judgment d i s m i s s i n g Fan's c o m p l a i n t w i t h the t r i a l regard court's to h i s tort- o f - o u t r a g e c l a i m a n d h i s r e t a l i a t o r y - d i s c h a r g e c l a i m b a s e d on his having filed a workers' compensation t i t l e d as a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t in a l l other respects, claim. a n d we claim, We r e v e r s e remand t h e c a u s e which was t h e judgment for further proceedings. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. Pittman, B r y a n , a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n part and d i s s e n t s w r i t i n g , w h i c h Thompson, P . J . , j o i n s . 12 i n part, with 2110601 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and dissenting in part. I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t from t h a t p a r t of the main affirming the trial court's Chong Fan's c o m p l a i n t . Fan t h a t h i s employment had compensation that "[n]o employer solely clearly Section employee because the the first count stated in his been t e r m i n a t e d benefits. provides d i s m i s s a l of shall be employee workers' Code "action" benefits means more under than this the an instituted has by or chapter filing of 1975, terminated m a i n t a i n e d any a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e e m p l o y e r t o r e c o v e r compensation workers' " a in complaint for seeking 25-5-11.1, A l a . opinion legal The term complaint, e x t e n d i n g t o t h e m a k i n g o f any c l a i m f o r w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n benefits. So. 2d 1299 meritorious v. M c C l a i n v. B i r m i n g h a m C o c a - C o l a B o t t l i n g Co., (Ala. 1991). c l a i m b a s e d on F a r m e r s E x c h . Bank, 735 App. 1999). Hence, Fan has The claim does n o t a covered personal So. 2d 1233, 1235 have t o be injury. n.1 578 a Hutto (Ala. Civ. s t a t e d a cause of a c t i o n under § 25-5-11.1 d e s p i t e h i s f a i l u r e t o p l e a d t h a t he i n j u r e d h i m s e l f a t work and a his claim despite his failure f o r workers' complaint was to plead t h a t he compensation b e n e f i t s . sufficient 13 to had "filed" I believe place that Qualitest 2110601 P h a r m a c e u t i c a l s on n o t i c e t h a t Fan was c l a i m i n g a v i o l a t i o n o f § 25-5-11.1 strongly Martin 1988). and that his allegations, i n h i s favor v. H a r r e l s o n , 532 ... would when entitle So. 2d 1256, 1256 him "viewed to 14 relief." ( A l a . C i v . App. I concur i n the remainder of the o p i n i o n . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s . most

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.