Anderson v. Save-A-Lot, Ltd.
989 S.W.2d 277 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An emotional injury resulting from sexual harassment by a supervisor is not compensable under workers' compensation law because the harassment is a purely personal act and not a risk inherent to the nature of the employment.
Facts:
- Bernice Anderson was employed by Save-A-Lot Foods as a co-assistant manager.
- Her immediate supervisor, Kenneth Bush, had previously expressed a personal dislike for Anderson while they worked at another store.
- After becoming manager of the Frayser Boulevard store, Bush arranged for Anderson to be transferred to work under his supervision.
- Upon her arrival, Bush demanded sexual favors, stating he wanted the 'same thing' she had been 'doing with the other managers.'
- On a daily basis, Bush subjected Anderson to graphic sexual comments, lewd gestures, unwanted physical contact, and accusations of sexual activity with co-workers.
- Bush threatened to fire Anderson and kill her if she reported his conduct.
- As a result of the prolonged harassment, Anderson alleged she developed post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, rendering her unable to work.
Procedural Posture:
- Bernice Anderson filed a Complaint for Workers' Compensation against Save-A-Lot, Ltd. and its insurer in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, a state trial court.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the injury was not compensable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Anderson appealed to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, an intermediate appellate body.
- The Appeals Panel reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The defendants appealed the Panel's decision to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an emotional injury resulting from sexual harassment by a supervisor 'arise out of' employment for the purposes of recovering workers' compensation benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Drowota, J.
No. An injury from sexual harassment by a supervisor does not 'arise out of' employment because the motivation for the harassment is purely personal and is not a hazard causally connected to the conditions of the work. For a workers' compensation claim to be valid, the injury must not only occur 'in the course of' employment (time, place, and circumstances) but also 'arise out of' it, meaning there is a causal connection between the work conditions and the resulting injury. The court determined that Bush's actions were motivated by personal reasons—either a perverse sexual desire or a need to control and humiliate Anderson—and were not in furtherance of Save-A-Lot's business. Unlike jobs that inherently expose employees to risks from the public, there was no indication that working at a grocery store carried an inherent risk of sexual harassment. Public policy also supports this conclusion, as the Tennessee Human Rights Act, not the Workers' Compensation Law, is the appropriate legislative scheme designed to provide a full remedy for injuries resulting from workplace discrimination and harassment.
Analysis:
This decision carves out sexual harassment claims from Tennessee's workers' compensation system, classifying them as non-work-related, personal torts rather than occupational hazards. By denying compensability under workers' compensation, the court prevents employers from using the statute's exclusive remedy provision as a shield against more comprehensive civil rights lawsuits under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) or Title VII. This forces victims of sexual harassment to seek redress through anti-discrimination statutes, which allow for a broader range of damages, including for emotional distress and punitive damages, but may involve a more arduous litigation process than the no-fault workers' compensation system. The ruling solidifies the legal distinction between industrial accidents and intentional, personal misconduct in the workplace.
