Divided Florida Court Says On-the-Clock Bowling Outing Was Not a Recreational Event

In a split decision, a Florida appellate court held that an employee’s injuries sustained while bowling with co-workers during an employer-sponsored event arose out of and in the course of the employment, justifying an award of workers’ compensation benefits in spite of the employer’s contention that the event was an excluded “recreational activity,” as defined by § 440.092(1), Fla. Stat. [Reynolds v. Anixter Power Sols., 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 18265 (1st DCA, Dec. 10, 2019)]. The appellate court stressed that the fact that the bowling activity was conducted during regular work hours and had, as one of its purposes, the discussion of business goals for the upcoming year meant that the case was distinguishable from an earlier Florida decision in which a claim filed by an “on-call” worker, injured while playing softball, had been denied.

Background

As is the situation in a number of other states [see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 22.01, et seq.], Florida has a special statute covering the compensability of injuries sustained during recreational activities. § 440.092(1), Fla. Stat., provides:

Recreational or social activities are not compensable unless such recreational or social activities are an expressly required incident of employment and produce a substantial direct benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale that is common to all kinds of recreation and social life.

Speaking for the majority of the appellate court, Justice Wolf said there was no dispute that the bowling event was held during regular work hours and that those attending were paid to do so. Employees were advised via email — the message was never introduced into evidence — about the event. Apparently, the email invitation could be accepted or declined. Justice Wolf summarily said that an electronic option to decline was insufficient to establish that participation in the event was voluntary. He observed that Claimant was not told she could have remained at work or taken a vacation day rather than attend the event.

Claimant’s supervisor testified that the purpose of the event was to improve morale and to discuss “some of our goals for the next year.” Justice Wolf indicated that under these circumstances, no reasonable person in Claimant’s position would have believed that the activity was not a required incident of employment. The Justice added that the testimony of the employer established that there was a substantial and direct benefit to the employer beyond simply improving employee morale and health. Justice Wolf stressed that there was nothing in § 440.092(1) that would indicate a desire to preclude compensation where a person was injured in conducting actual job duties. The JCC was in error, therefore, when the injury was found not to be compensable.

Dissent

Justice Rowe dissented, observing that Claimant’s supervisor testified that the event was not mandatory — it was “basically building morale” and did not include either clients or advertising. She indicated Claimant had failed to present competent, substantial evidence to show that the bowling event was required as an incident of her employment or that it provided a substantial direct benefit to the employer beyond improving employee health and morale. Justice Rowe stated, therefore, the JCC’s order denying compensability should be affirmed.