Two doctor’s notes, one termination, and a manager who promised to ‘get rid of’ her
A ground worker slipped on airport stairs, filed a comp claim, and lost her job over a doctor’s note - now Envoy Air owes $675,000.
The worker slipped on stairs during the final flight of the night at Mobile Regional Airport on October 25, 2018, injuring her shoulder. She reported it to her shift supervisor, who she testified told her “the last person who had reported getting hurt on the job was no longer there.”
A doctor restricted her to lifting no more than 10 pounds. Her normal duties required at least 50.
When she returned, everything shifted. Her station manager - previously friendly, full of morning greetings - turned cold. The manager “seemed agitated,” stopped speaking to her, and sometimes walked right past, the worker testified. The lifting help Envoy had promised did not consistently come.
On December 3, the worker said she was still not getting help. The manager asked whether Envoy was still “a good fit.” When the worker said she wanted to stay, the manager said she would “find a way to get rid of” her, according to the testimony.
That same week a disputed doctor’s note surfaced. Two versions existed - the original with computer-generated marks, and an altered copy with handwritten additions. Each side blamed the other. The manager never raised the note during that conversation - despite having allegedly received it days earlier.
By December 28 the worker was suspended. On January 7, 2019, she was fired for “falsification of documentation.”
On appeal, the central question was who decided to fire her. Envoy pointed to an HR representative in Texas. But its own discovery responses stated “the plaintiff was terminated by” the station manager. Only she signed the termination letter. Envoy’s job description for HR staff said they “provide counsel and recommendations” - not final decisions.
The Supreme Court of Alabama, in an opinion released October 16, 2026, affirmed the jury’s finding of retaliatory discharge. It held there was sufficient evidence the manager made the call and that the falsification charge was pretext. The court noted the jury could have found the manager created the altered note herself to justify a termination she had already promised.
The jury awarded $250,000 in compensatory damages and $425,000 in punitive damages. The court affirmed liability but remanded for written reasons on its refusal to reduce either figure.
For HR teams, the ruling turns on a question worth auditing: when job descriptions say HR “recommends” but a manager signs the letter, who does a jury see as the decision-maker?
