Case Study:
Miller v. Washington Workplace, Inc. 298 F. Supp. 2d 364 (E.D. Va. 2004)
In addition to suing for hostile environment sexual harassment, employee sued employer for assault, battery, and false imprisonment because of the employer’s violent reaction when employee asked to see the company’s sexual harassment policy. The court ruled that the claims should be handled under workers’ compensation rather than tort law since they arose out of or in the course of employment and thus dismissed them.
Workplace employed Miller as a salesperson. Murphy was her supervisor and the president of Workplace. When Miller interviewed for the position, Murphy represented that he distributed the business leads equally among his sales staff. Miller worked as a salesperson from December 1, 2000 until early June 2003. During her time at Workplace, Miller began to have difficulty with Murphy. Murphy failed to distribute the business leads equally, and often took business away from her. Murphy referred to her as a “screw up” or a “nothing sales person.” He openly discussed her sales figures with other employees. Also, he claimed that she had accumulated unfounded draws on her sales commissions. Additionally, Miller complains of the hostile work environment created by Murphy. Murphy told Miller how he used the internet site “Match.com” to meet women. He showed her his personal ad and encouraged her to use the website so that she could have sex like he did. Murphy also submitted Miller’s name to Match.com. He recommended that she post her personal information on a website for divorced Catholics. Murphy often referred to the office’s sexual harassment policy as the “porno/internet” document. Miller alleges that Murphy made lewd comments about women’s breasts, legs, buttocks, and made frequent comments about female customers and speculated whether they had “boob jobs.” Murphy frequently questioned her about her sex life, encouraged others to discuss their sexual proclivities in front of Miller, and made lewd remarks about women. On June 3, 2003, Miller made an inquiry to Workplace’s office manager requesting a copy of the sexual harassment policy and a copy of her most recent commissions/wage statement. Before she received these materials, Murphy called her at her desk and said, “why did you ask for a copy of the pornography/internet policy you signed?” Miller responded, stating “I did not ask you, John.” Murphy then said, “I do not like your answer,” and slammed down the phone. Moments later, Murphy charged into Miller’s office, grabbed her by the arm, hurled her towards the door, and pushed her into a metal framed guest chair in her office. Murphy then shouted that Miller was fired. Murphy grabbed Miller’s arm and attempted to remove some papers from her grasp. Murphy would not let her leave her office with her personal belongings and appeared out of control and physically threatening. Murphy continued to prevent Miller from retrieving her belongings, by sitting on her desk and kicking his heels against the drawer. When the police arrived, Miller was finally able to collect her belongings and leave the premises. Miller asserts three intentional tort claims against Murphy. Employer contends that Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for the injuries Miller claims were caused by Murphy’s allegedly tortious conduct. The Court agrees with the employer and holds that the Court does not have jurisdiction over these claims. The Act provides an employee certain rights and remedies if the employee has suffered “an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.” The Act precludes an employee from bringing common law personal injury claims against a co-employee or employer for injuries sustained during the course of employment. An injury is subject to the exclusivity provision of the Act if it is the result of an accident and “arises out of and in the course of the employment.” Thus, the critical inquiry is whether Miller’s injury was (1) an injury by accident, (2) arising out of, (3) and in the course of, her employment. If any one of these elements is missing, then Miller’s claim is not covered by the Act. The first condition that the employer must show is that Miller sustained “an injury by accident.” For an injury to be considered “by accident,” it must have occurred at a particular time and place, as opposed to cumulative injury from repetitive trauma. The act covers injuries caused by an intentional or willful assault upon an employee by a co-worker. The Court holds that Workplace has shown that Miller sustained an injury by accident. The second element of coverage by the Act is also met. In cases involving intentional torts, “the necessary causal connection may be established if the evidence shows that the attack was directed against the claimant as an employee or because of the employment. Every event in this scenario, Miller’s discontent with Murphy’s workplace conduct, her request for a copy of the sexual harassment policy, and Murphy’s attack upon her, was work-related. Furthermore, intentional torts committed during the course of a termination are covered by the Act. Murphy attacked Miller, because of her request for a copy of the sexual harassment policy. The requisite causal connection has been met. Finally, Miller’s injury arose during the course of the employment. While the second element, “arising out of the employment,” refers to causation, the third element refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the accident. The injuries occurred during the workday and at Miller’s place of employment. MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED.
Q1. What would you have done to have avoided a situation like this?
Q2. Do you see how the court made sure the analysis of the facts would allow the employee to be able to bring her claims as a workers’ compensation claim? Explain.
Q3. Why do you think the employer engaged in the sexual harassment actions, yet had such a violent reaction when the employee requested the sexual harassment policy? Explain.
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format.