• Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now
Jeremy W. RichterJeremy W. Richter
Jeremy W. RichterJeremy W. Richter
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now

Assault, Battery, and Outrage in the Workplace

Assault, Battery, and Outrage in the Workplace

Assault, Battery, and Outrage in the Workplace

September 1, 2016 Posted by Jeremy W. Richter Workers' Compensation

Ex parte Lincare Inc. and Angela Stewart: The Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision precludes a claim against the employer for an employee’s willful conduct.

On August 19, 2016, the Supreme Court of Alabama decided Ex parte Lincare Inc. and Angela Stewart [Ms. 1141373], — So.3d — (Ala. 2016), pursuant to a writ of mandamus filed by Lincare and its employee Angela Stewart, after the Jefferson County Circuit Court denied their motion to dismiss tort claims alleged against them by Lincare’s former employee Sandra Martin.

At the time of the underlying incident, Stewart was Martin’s supervisor at Lincare. Martin resigned on June 6, 2014, alleging that she was resigning because Stewart created a difficult work environment, and Lincare (despite being made aware by Martin of Stewart’s treatment of subordinate employees) had made no efforts to resolve the problem. Martin alleged that after submitting her letter of resignation, Stewart confronted her about some paperwork, forcibly removed paperwork from Martin’s hand, and began to choke, assault, and physically attack Martin. Thereafter, Martin made a worker’s compensation claim against Lincare for injuries she alleges were caused by Stewart, made claims for outrage and assault-and-battery against both Stewart and Lincare.

Stewart and Lincare moved to sever the workers’ compensation claim; dismiss the tort claims against Lincare as being subject to the exclusivity provision contained in the Workers’ Compensation Act (Alabama Code § 25-5-52); contended that as pertained to the outrage claim against Stewart, Martin had failed to state a complaint upon which relief could be granted; and finally, argued that subject to her employment agreement, Martin had waived her right to a jury trial. The trial court severed the workers’ compensation claim for trial purposes, and struck the jury demand for the work workers’ compensation claim. It denied Lincare and Stewart’s motion to dismiss the other claims, and further denied their motion to strike the jury demand.

Subsequent to the writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court of Alabama decided the following issues:

(1) Whether Martin’s tort claims against Lincare were subsumed by the Workers’ Compensation Act

The Alabama Supreme Court found that Martin’s tort claims against Lincare, including outrage and assault and battery, were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Under the act, if a personal injury results from the willful conduct of one employee against another employee, the injured employee has a cause of action again the employee, but not the employer. See Ala. Code § 25-5-11. Martin alleged and the Supreme Court agreed that Stewart’s alleged actions were willful and intentional conduct, as defined by the act: “[I]f a person, with knowledge of the danger or peril to another, consciously pursues a course of conduct with a design, intent, and purpose of inflicting injury, then he or she is guilty of ‘willful conduct.'” Ala. Code § 25-5-11. The fact that Martin had resigned immediately prior to the alleged incident had no bearing on its analysis.

(2) Whether Martin’s outrage claim against Stewart should be dismissed

The Alabama Supreme Court found that it did not have authority to review by mandamus the trial court’s denial of Stewart’s motion to dismiss the outrage claim.

(3) Whether Martin was entitled to a jury trial on her claims against Stewart

The Alabama Supreme Court held that the employment agreement between Lincare and Martin, in which Martin waived her right to a jury trial to resolve any claims arising out of her employment, did not include Stewart as a party to the contract. Nor was there sufficient basis for construing Stewart as an intended third-party beneficiary of the jury waiver. Therefore, there was no basis to strike Martin’s jury demand as to her claims against Stewart.


Artwork by Darwin Bell.

Do your best work. Be your best self.

Get the first three chapters of Level Up Your Law Practice so you can have a successful and sustainable law practice that meets your needs through self-assessment, having a vision for yourself and your practice, and client relationships that are built on trust.

Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

You also might be interested in

An In-Depth Look at SB90 and the Judicial Resources Allocation Commission

An In-Depth Look at SB90 and the Judicial Resources Allocation Commission

Mar 7, 2017

The Alabama legislature has passed legislation that could substantially affect the[...]

Relying on Extra-Contractual Oral Representations

Feb 18, 2016

An Alabama Supreme Court decision touching on extra-contractual oral representations and a party's reliance on same.

Apparent Authority to Accept Notice of a Claim

Feb 22, 2016

Whether an entity has apparent authority to accept notice of an insured's claim on behalf of companies is an issue of fact that precludes summary judgment.

Being a lawyer doesn’t mean doing business as usual.

Recent Posts

  • Inspiration Strikes at the Oddest Times
  • Quitting One Thing to Make Room for Another (Lawyerpreneur’s Finale)
  • From High-Rise Buildings to High-Stakes Thrillers with Bonnie Kistler
  • Mental Health among Lawyers with Suzan Hixon
  • Coaching Lawyers in Career Crisis with Annie Little

Search the Blog

Contact Me

Send me an email and I'll get back to you.

Send Message
Doing your best work. Be your best self. Let me help you get there with my new book "Level Up Your Law Practice"

© 2023 · Richter Holdings, LLC

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now
Prev Next