Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO—NDAla: Employer Not Liable For RICO Violations, (Nov 19, 2012)
Organizations Mentioned:Barton, LLP
By Jody Coultas, J.D.
Former employees of a chemical company could not state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims against the company, according to the federal district court in Birmingham (Burchfield v. Industrial Chemicals, Inc., November 16, 2012, Proctor, R.).
While working for Industrial Chemicals, Inc. (IC), Daryl Burchfield expressed support for a fellow employee that filed an EEOC charge of racial discrimination against IC and complained about being forced to sign a document stating that employees could be terminated for contacting government officials. Burchfield was fired, and he in turn filed an EEOC charge of retaliatory termination. Another IC employee was allegedly harassed and terminated because of Burchfield. The former employees filed multiple charges against IC, including RICO claims.
Courts have refused to find a valid RICO claim where the alleged enterprise consists only of a corporation and its employees. Employees acting solely in the interest of their employer are not distinct from that enterprise.
Because the RICO claim concerned only IC and its employees, the court dismissed the claim. Also, Burchfield lacked standing to assert the RICO claims because he did not suffer a plausible injury in fact.
The case is No. 2:11-CV-2816-RDP.
Barry V Frederick (The Frederick Firm) for Daryl Burchfield. Mac B Greaves (Johnston Barton Proctor & Rose LLP) for Industrial Chemicals, Inc.
Cases: RICO AlabamaNews