California Employee's IIED Claim Against Employer for Inadequate COVID-19 Protocols Barred by Exclusivity
A federal district court in California recently held that a plaintiff’s claims against her former employer, a private operator of correctional facilities, for negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic are barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of California’s Workers’ Compensation Act [Brooks v. Corecivic of Tenn. LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162429 (S.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2020)]. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims were essentially based on the employer’s alleged failure to maintain a safe and healthy workplace. Observing that the obligation existed at all times, the court ruled that the employer’s duty did not fall outside the compensation bargain just because the triggering event was a pandemic. The court did, however, refuse to dismiss the plaintiff’s constructive discharge claims.
Background
The plaintiff worked as a detention officer for the defendant corporation, a private operator of correctional facilities with contracts for services with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the United States Marshals Service. She maintained that she had been constructively discharged because she had refused to work under the unsafe conditions maintained by the employer at Otay Mesa Detention Center. In particular, she alleged that on several occasions she had been told to remove a mask she had been wearing. She indicated she was told the employer was following CDC guidelines, which did not require masks (at the time).
Plaintiff alleged that thereafter, she learned that one of her co-workers had tested positive for COVID-19. She alleged she was at risk of developing severe complications from COVID-19 due to her race (African American) and obesity, and that her husband is also at high risk. She alleged the employer “intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated … that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign.” The employer moved to dismiss the complaint.
District Court’s Decision
As to the negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims, the court cited numerous decisions in which California courts had found such claims barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity. As to the plaintiff’s allegations that the employer’s conduct that contravened fundamental public policy and exceeded the risk inherent in the employment relationship, the court indicated both arguments missed the mark. The court stressed that courts tended to focus not on whether the claim was based on conduct that was offensive to public policy but on the broader question of whether the conduct was part of the compensation bargain.
No Harassment or Discrimination Here
The court acknowledged that negligent supervision claims based on harassment or discrimination had been found to fall outside the workers’ compensation system, but not because they were based on conduct that was contrary to public policy (although they are). The court disagreed with the plaintiff’s contention that her negligent supervision and IIED claims fall outside the compensation bargain because they involved a response to a pandemic, which was never contemplated as a risk inherent in the employment relationship. While pandemics themselves were uncommon events, that did not mean the employer’s response to the pandemic fell outside the risk inherent in the employment relationship. On the contrary, stressed the court, one would expect employers to have some type of protocol in place to deal with this kind of catastrophic event. This was especially so considering the fact that the employer was engaged in the operation and management of detention facilities, which were particularly susceptible to the spread of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19.
Because the obligation to provide a safe and healthy workplace was inextricably part of the compensation bargain, the plaintiff’s negligent supervision and IIED claims were barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as to those claims.