Yet Another Sexual Harassment Case

Equality for all! Gladly the jury was open-minded and didn't throw this case out just because the victim was a man and not a woman. 

Not every case of sexual discrimination or harassment involves a man mistreating a woman (though a lot of them do). In 2014, a Texas jury awarded $567,000 to 51-year-old former police constable James Gist after it found a supervising constable, Pam Matranga, sexually harassed him for nearly five months.

Gist accused Matranga of making suggestive comments and advances, as well as pressing his head between her breasts. Gist’s attorney told the Houston Chronicle, that in addition to awarding his client $200,000 more than he asked for, the jury wasn’t swayed by the atypical gender dynamics of the case.

“They rejected this whole notion that you get away with it because you are a female,” Griffin said.

Quesadilla Bites Back: Restaurant Waiter’s Choking Was Not Actual Risk of Employment (Virginia)

Who knew quesadillas could be so dangerous to one's esophagus? The restaurant did not make him eat the quesadilla so they should not have to be responsible, unless of course, if there was a foreign object that he ate. 

Affirming the bizarre reasoning of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission, in July the Court of Appeals of Virginia, in a divided opinion, affirmed a denial of benefits to a restaurant host/waiter who injured his esophagus while attempting to swallow a bite of quesadilla that he was tasting in order to be able to make recommendations to the restaurant’s patrons later in his shift. Agreeing that the injury occurred in the course of the waiter’s employment, but finding that it did not result from an actual risk of the employment, the appellate court stressed that Virginia uses the actual risk doctrine, which the court said excludes an injury that comes from a hazard to which the employee would have been equally exposed apart from the employment. It did not matter, said the court, that the waiter ate the quesadilla to be a better waiter; that only established the injury occurred during the course of the employment. The commission was right to conclude the injury did not arise out of an actual risk of the employment. The quesadilla was not a hazard or danger, much less one peculiar to the restaurant, stated the appellate court. Most courts would say that instead of describing the “actual risk” doctrine, the Virginia court here utilized the standards of the “increased risk” doctrine.

Say No to Carpooling

I'm glad this case turned out the way it did for the money-hungry employee who needs some anger management. I hope he was terminated from the workplace


In March, a special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, affirmed a decision by a state trial court that had dismissed a truck driver’s complaint against a former employer to recover for workers’ compensation benefits where it appeared that the injured driver became angry at his driving partner, stopped the vehicle in a remote location, got out of the truck, and set upon a personal mission to obtain an object with which to assault his driving partner. The court acknowledged a conflict in evidence—the injured driver claimed that he had sustained injuries as he tried to reenter the truck after his driving partner indicated he was going to leave the driver in the Arizona desert—but noted that the trial court had found the injured driver's testimony not to be credible.

Serious Injuries Caused by Employee’s Attempt “to Ride” Escalator Rail at Annual Sales Meeting Found Compensable (North Carolina)

What a trip to remember! As if it wasn't embarrassing enough for her to remember that she rode the escalator, but she was willing to sit through all of the court hearings regarding it? I guess it paid off..

A North Carolina appellate court recently affirmed a decision by the state’s Industrial Commission that awarded extensive workers’ compensation benefits to an office manager who fell some 25 to 30 feet to a hard surface while trying “to ride” the railing of an escalator following a “festive” gathering for dinner and drinks associated with the employer’s annual sales meeting. The manager worked in Texas and had traveled to Charlotte, NC to attend the four-day meeting, during which various workshops and business meetings were scheduled. The employer had provided alcoholic drinks before dinner, had served wine during the dinner, and paid for drinks in the bar following dinner. At the time of the accident, a group of employees, including the office manager, had begun the return walk to the hotel in which they were staying. The manager climbed onto the escalator railing and attempted to ride it down to the next floor, but fell and sustained serious injuries. A blood alcohol test at the hospital revealed that her blood alcohol level was “sufficient to cause a lack of inhibitory control that contributed to the accident.” The employer contended the injury was the result of a deviation from the employment and/or that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the employment, but the appellate court, following earlier precedent, held that the claim fell within the "well-established" rule set “that a traveling employee will be compensated under the Workers' Compensation Act for injuries received while returning to his [or her] hotel….”

Snake-handling School Official and School Board Are Immune From Tort Liability for Brandishing Serpent in Office (Kentucky)

I would probably react the same way the teacher did, due to my fear of any reptile if it is brought close to me. If the assistant principal did not walk into the classroom with it or create fear in the students, then maybe the teacher was over reacting.

In mid-December, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed a state trial court’s summary judgment in favor of a high school assistant principal and a county board of education in a civil action filed by a high school teacher/administrator (and her husband) that alleged intentional and malicious injury when an assistant principal entered the teacher’s office carrying a large snake. The teacher alleged that when she saw the snake, she jumped up out of her chair, started screaming, and ran into the concrete wall that was behind her chair. The teacher indicated the snake had its head up and its tongue out as if it was going to strike. She also alleged that she suffered injuries to her knees and heart, as well as post-traumatic stress syndrome. According to the teacher, the assistant principal just stood there and laughed and said that the teacher must be “a sissy” because she was afraid of “my friend.” The assistant principal countered that she took the snake to the school’s administrative offices because a student’s mother had brought it to school for a science class. The assistant principal added that she did not enter the teacher’s office, but remained in the doorway, and that the teacher had never communicated any fear of snakes. Agreeing with the trial court that the tort action was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the state’s workers’ compensation law, the appellate court held that the actions of the defendant principal did not amount to “willful and unprovoked physically aggression.” The court continued that there was no evidence that the assistant principal threatened to touch or had actually touched the teacher with the snake, or that she pushed or thrust the snake toward the teacher. Absent any such evidence of aggression or hostility, the assistant principal’s actions fell within the scope of her employment. Both the school district and the assistant principal enjoyed the immunity afforded by the state’s workers’ compensation law.

Drinking Binge and Two-Hour Nap Found to Be Deviation From Employment, Subsequent Fall Down Elevator Shaft Not Compensable (Utah)

Someone actually sued their employer for this? Common sense is definitely not common these days.

Citing Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 20.01, a Utah appellate court last January held that a painter was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits for severe injuries sustained when the employee fell into an elevator shaft after a drinking binge after lunch at the work site, followed by a two-hour nap in a closet. The court reasoned that while the employee was on the premises at the time of the injury and the injury occurred during the normal work day, the painter could not be said to have been furthering any business of his employer when he drank for two hours and then took the nap.

Benefits Awarded for Salad Bar Injury That Proved Fatal (Pennsylvania)

Injuries that occur during employee time seem to always have a gray area when deciding who is responsible. In this case, if the professor had left to just grab lunch, it probably would not be the responsibility of the university, but since he was having a meeting with a student, it counted as the employer's obligation. 

In August, a Pennsylvania appellate court affirmed an award of death benefits to the widow of a professor who died, apparently from a post-surgical infection associated with the treatment of a broken arm and shoulder that had been sustained in a fall at the salad bar of an off-campus restaurant. The professor had traveled to the restaurant to meet with a doctoral student. The employer contended the fall, and resulting death, did not arise out of and in the course of the employment, but the appellate court disagreed. The court acknowledged that injuries sustained during off-premises lunches were, indeed, ordinarily excluded from workers’ compensation coverage. Here, however, the student and professor met for what was anticipated to be a three-hour meeting over lunch. The two discussed the student’s upcoming defense of his dissertation for more than an hour when they decided to go to the restaurant’s salad bar to begin their lunch. While at the salad bar, the professor fell. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the Board’s finding that the professor was about the business of the employer at the time of the fall.