Federal Court (Cal.) Says Tort Claim Alleging Unsafe COVID-19 Conditions is Barred by Exclusivity Rule
A federal district court, sitting in California, granted–in relevant part–an employer’s motion to dismiss two causes of action alleging negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress filed by a former detention officer who claimed that conditions at the detention facility were so dangerously compromised by COVID-19 that he was constructively discharged [Arnold v. Corecivic of Tenn., LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2868 (S.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2021). Finding that the alleged conduct of the employer was not outside the normal compensation bargain, the court reiterated that California courts had refused to allow suits against employers who had allegedly violated health and safety regulations.
Background
Arnold sued his former employer, Corecivic of Tennessee, LLC, for failing to provide a safe working environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Arnold was a Detention Officer for Corecivic at the Otay Mesa Detention Center (the “Facility”). According to the Complaint, as of April 27, 2020, the Facility had approximately 142 inmates/detainees and numerous staff members test positive for COVID-19. Arnold contended that despite these conditions, Corecivic failed to implement policies to adequately deal with the pandemic. As a result, Arnold contended the workplace conditions were so unsafe and unhealthy that he had no reasonable alternative but to resign.
Arnold, a 60-year-old male who takes medication regularly for high blood pressure, also alleged that he also lived with family members who had a heightened risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19, including his son who is asthmatic. He alleged further that in approximately March 2020, as the number of COVID-19 cases were rapidly increasing, he and other detention officers were prohibited from wearing face coverings inside the housing units and other areas of the Facility while working in close proximity with detainees. According to Arnold, officers who were responsible for patting down detainees as needed were also not provided gloves or masks and on the rare occasion officers were able to find gloves, they were often too small. Arnold alleged other failings on the part of the Facility (e.g., failing to provide sanitizer, failing to sanitize touched structures regularly, failure to perform deep cleaning of the Facility.
Exclusivity Rule Subject to Exceptions
The district court acknowledged that California’s exclusivity rule [see Cal. Labor Code § 3601] was subject to exceptions for certain types of intentional employer misconduct. For example, an employee (or former employee) may sue in tort when the employer’s actions involved employer behavior that could not be considered a normal risk of employment or violated public policy and, therefore, fell outside the compensation bargain [e.g., false imprisonment].
The district court stressed, however, that California courts had refused to apply the exception where the employer was alleged to have violated health and safety regulations. Here, Arnold sought to hold his former employer liable for failing to provide proper protective equipment and violating safety regulations. The court concluded that under California law, such claims are barred by California’s workers compensation exclusivity.
For a similar earlier ruling, see Brooks v. Corecivic of Tennessee LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162429, 85 Cal. Comp. Cases 843 (S.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2020).