Ex-North Myrtle Beach employee says he was hurt on job, fired after becoming disabled
A mechanic who worked for the North Myrtle Beach city government for decades is suing his former employer, saying he was fired for a permanent disability stemming from an injury he sustained on the job.
Davis Livingston, formerly the superintendent of pumping stations, worked for the City of North Myrtle Beach for 36 years and is suing for defamation, worker’s compensation retaliation, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The lawsuit was filed in Horry County court last month.
It is the fourth lawsuit filed against the city of North Myrtle Beach by former employees this year. When reached for a statement, Pat Dowling, spokesperson for the city of North Myrtle Beach, said the city does not comment on pending litigation.
Livingston worked for the city government from October 8, 1984 until July 27, 2020. Livingston was hired as a pump mechanic. He was promoted to a supervisory role as superintendent in 2007, and worked in that capacity until he was fired last year.
In the lawsuit, Livingston states that his issues with his employer at the City of North Myrtle Beach began with an injury he sustained at work.
In March 2018, Livingston suffered a “traumatic fall” while donating blood at a work-sponsored event, the lawsuit alleges. The workplace injury left him with several broken bones — in three places — and a dislocated ankle that required at least two surgeries.
The injury and subsequent surgeries put him out of work on medical leave for six months, the lawsuit states.
Livingston filed a worker’s compensation claim that initially went through smoothly, according to the lawsuit. Later, the city’s insurance carrier refused Livingston the medical care he needed, and he hired an attorney to for his worker’s compensation claim, according to the lawsuit.
Livingston’s worker’s compensation claim continued to be “contentious” with his employer, the lawsuit states.
He returned to work June 2019, with accommodation for physical therapy and changes to the distances he had to walk and the amount of time spent standing on the job. Livingston wore an ankle brace daily.
On May 29, 2020, Livingston was informed that he had been put on unpaid administrative leave. He was “blindsided.” Livingston said in the lawsuit that was he told he was being investigated, but was not told why. Livingston suspected his employer was looking for a reason to fire him due to his permanent disability.
Throughout the course of the administrative leave — which ended with his termination two months later on July 27 — Livingston agreed to take a lie detector test as part of the investigation.
Livingston was called into work on June 3, 2020 “for a barrage of three meetings lasting hours.”
During those meetings he was questioned about whether he takes illegal drugs or has ever brought a gun to work. He was questioned about brandishing a knife on the job. He denied doing any of those things. He was asked if he had ever slept at work — he recalled once in 36 years when he took a nap at lunch, according to the lawsuit.
He was asked about “solicitous” sexual harassment accusations. His ankle injury was “expressly” discussed during the investigation. He was told that his behavior had been “erratic” since returning to work from medical leave and that multiple people had complained about him, but they did not specify what was said.
Livingston believes the complaints came from an employee he reported to higher-ups for watching pornography at work. That same employee had “violently threatened [Livingston] and spit in [his] face.”
Livingston had recently reprimanded another employee shortly after, the lawsuit states. As superintendent, he wrote up the employee for failing to follow federal and local safety protocols. Livingston believes that the employee, who was angry with Livingston for the write-up, also complained about him.
Livingston said he believed his employer used the two employees’ complaints “to act on its intent to fire [Livingston] because of his ankle disability caused by the workplace injury.”
After being questioned about drug use, Livingston took a drug test and sent his clean results to his employer. He received no response about the drug test, he said in the filing.
During the course of his administrative leave, he contacted the City of North Myrtle Beach several times to ask what he could do to return to work. Multiple inquiries went without response. He was eventually told “there were instructions in place to ignore” Livingston.
The defamation claim stems from Livingston’s employer accusing him of using and dealing illegal and prescription drugs, the lawsuit states.
Livingston is asking for money to cover the loss of earning and attorney fees as well as the cost of the drug test and the lie detector tests he took as a result of the city’s defamatory claims, the lawsuit alleges.
