NJ High Court Allows Claim for Injury Sustained During Charity’s “Fun Day”
Where a chef/cook, employed by a non-profit organization, sustained injuries at her employer’s “Family Fun Day”, an event that included recreational activities, games and music, held on a Saturday for the employer’s clients and their families, and for which the chef/cook had volunteered to cook, her injuries were nevertheless compensable in spite of the provisions in N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 that generally disqualify injuries sustained at a social or recreational event, held the Supreme Court of New Jersey [Goulding v. NJ Friendship House, 2021 N.J. LEXIS 126 (Feb. 8, 2021)].
Stressing that, as to the employee, the event was not a social or recreational activity since she was acting in her usual role, the high court held that, even if her volunteering for Family Fun Day were social or recreational as those terms are used in N.J.S.A. 34:15-7, she would still have satisfied the two-part exception set forth in that statute because her participation was a regular incident to her employment and it produced a benefit to Friendship House beyond improvement to employee health and morale. The court reversed an adverse decision by the state’s Appellate Division.
Background
Goulding worked as a chef/cook for Friendship House, a non-profit organization whose mission is to build the skills of individuals with varying abilities and developmental needs. Goulding worked Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., being paid on an hourly basis. Her responsibilities included cooking and preparing meals for Friendship House’s clients and teaching vocational classes to clients so that they could learn how to cook certain dishes.
On September 23, 2017, Friendship House hosted its first ever “Family Fun Day,” which it planned to hold as an annual event moving forward. The event was designed to provide a safe and fun environment with recreational activities, including games and music, for the clients of Friendship House and their families. Friendship House employees were asked to volunteer to work the event, but there were no consequences for those who chose not to volunteer. Goulding volunteered to work the event as a cook, her normal job at Friendship House.
On the day of the event, Goulding arrived between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and began setting up for breakfast. After breakfast, she began preparing for lunch. Sometime between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., Goulding stepped in a small pothole in the parking lot and fell down, injuring her ankle. She sought workers’ compensation benefits. The employer denied the claim. The workers’ compensation court determined that Goulding’s accident did not occur in the course of her employment.
Workers’ Compensation Court Denied Compensation
The court held that Family Fun Day was not a regular incident of Goulding’s employment as required by the first part of the N.J.S.A 34:15-7 test because this was the “first and only” Family Fun Day Friendship House had sponsored, and the incident in question was not the cooking activity Goulding volunteered for, but her attendance at the event generally. The compensation court added that Goulding volunteered to help at the event, was not compelled to do so, and could have volunteered for a position other than the one she held at her job. The compensation court also held that Family Fun Day did not produce a benefit to Friendship House beyond an improvement to employee health and morale as required by the second part of the statutory test because there was no fundraising or marketing associated with the event. Thus, the court dismissed Goulding’s claim with prejudice.
Appellate Division Affirms
The Appellate Division affirmed that decision. The appellate court first agreed that the test set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 governed the inquiry because Family Fun Day was a recreational or social activity: the event was designed to celebrate the clients; it included food, games, and music; Goulding volunteered to attend or help; and it was held on a Saturday, not a regular workday.
Supreme Court Reverses
The Supreme Court acknowledged that under New Jersey’s Worker’s Compensation Act, an employee injured during a social or recreational activity generally cannot receive compensation for those injuries unless a two-part exception set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 is met. Those two prongs are:
- Unless such recreational or social activities are a regular incident of employment, and
- Produce a benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale.
The Supreme Court disagreed, however, with the Appellate Division, finding that, as to Goulding, the event was not a social or recreational activity. Even if N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 was applicable here, said the Court, Goulding would still have satisfied the two-part exception set forth in that statute.
Noting that the Appellate Division had concluded that Goulding did not meet her burden on the first prong of the statutory exception because Family Fun Day was not a “regular incident of her employment”–it was the first such occurrence of the event–the Supreme Court disagreed. Goulding’s role at the event, which was planned to be held annually, was the same as her role as an employee, and but for her employment at Friendship House, Goulding would not have been asked to volunteer and would not have been injured. Thus, indicated the high court, Goulding’s injury was “a regular incident of employment.” Additionally, Friendship House received a benefit from Family Fun Day “beyond improvement in employee health and morale.” The event was not a closed event for the Friendship House team. Rather, it was an outreach event to celebrate and benefit Friendship House’s clients, creating goodwill in the community.
Attendance Need not be Compulsory
The Court acknowledged that it was undisputed that Goulding was not compelled to volunteer for Family Fun Day. The Court continued:
However, compulsion is not the only instance in which an activity can be removed from the social or recreational activity label. The facts here are distinct from prior cases in which we addressed social and recreational activities. Goulding was not playing softball on her lunch break; she was volunteering to cook (her regular job) for an event her employer was hosting, and which it planned to hold annually [Opinion, p. 28-29].
Commentary
I have to think about this one just a bit. The decision may raise more questions than it answers. The Court seems to have centered on the fact that the employee, a chef/cook, was performing her ordinary duties at the event. All well and good, I suppose, but is the Court also, therefore, saying that if Goulding had volunteered to blow up balloons or assist with the “three-legged” race or tug-of-war, her injury in the parking lot would not have been compensable?
Moreover, I recognize that the case has been remanded to the workers’ compensation court for further consistent handling. Is that workers’ compensation court bound by what appears to me to be a finding of factby the high court: that the employer received a benefit from Family Fun Day “beyond improvement in employee health and morale?”