Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Securities, Inc.
552 So. 2d 1099, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 549, 7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1782 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exclusivity provision of the Florida Workers' Compensation statute does not bar common law tort claims against an employer for injuries arising from workplace sexual harassment, as such claims vindicate the public policy against harassment and address intangible personal injuries distinct from the economic injuries covered by workers' compensation.
Facts:
- Penny Byrd and other female employees worked for Richardson-Greenshields Securities, Inc.
- During work hours and at the workplace, male employees repeatedly subjected the female employees to unwelcome physical touching.
- The male employees also made repeated verbal sexual advances toward the women.
- As a result of this conduct, the female employees claimed they suffered emotional anguish and stress.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, several female employees (Petitioners), filed a lawsuit against their employer, Richardson-Greenshields Securities, Inc. (Respondent), in a Florida trial court.
- The complaint alleged tort claims for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and retention.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the Florida Workers' Compensation statute provided the sole and exclusive remedy for the plaintiffs' claims.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal certified the legal question concerning the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits to the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
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 the exclusivity provision of the Florida Workers' Compensation statute bar employees from bringing common law tort claims against their employer for injuries resulting from sexual harassment in the workplace?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Barkett
No. The exclusivity provision of the Florida Workers' Compensation statute does not bar employees from bringing common law tort claims for sexual harassment. While the workers' compensation statute is generally the sole remedy for workplace injuries, it was designed to address economic harm from accidental injuries, not intangible injuries to personal rights. The court found an overwhelming public policy, expressed in both federal (Title VII) and state (Florida Human Rights Act) law, against sexual harassment. Applying the workers' compensation exclusivity rule to these claims would effectively abrogate this strong public policy. The court must harmonize the competing statutes, concluding that injuries from sexual harassment, which rob a person of 'dignity and self esteem,' are distinct from the economic injuries workers' compensation addresses. Therefore, tort claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from sexual harassment may be brought against an employer.
Concurring - Justice Grimes
No. The workers' compensation statute does not bar the plaintiffs' suit. The determination of whether workers' compensation applies depends on the nature of both the tort and the injury. Citing Professor Larson's treatise, the opinion distinguishes between torts whose essence is physical injury and those whose essence is non-physical. If the essence of the tort is non-physical and the resulting injuries are non-physical (as in an assault that causes fear but no physical harm), a common law suit should not be barred. Because the plaintiffs here incurred no physical injury compensable under the workers' compensation act, their tort action is not barred by the exclusivity provision.
Concurring - Chief Justice Ehrlich
No. The workers' compensation exclusivity provision is inapplicable because the acts of sexual harassment are not an 'injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment' as defined by the statute. The specific acts complained of fall outside the letter and spirit of the Workers' Compensation Law. Therefore, it is unnecessary to engage in an extended analysis of public policy from other statutes to conclude that the employees may pursue their common law tort claims against the employer.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant public policy exception to the workers' compensation exclusivity rule, a cornerstone of Florida employment law. By allowing employees to sue their employers directly in tort for sexual harassment, the court opened the door for remedies, such as damages for emotional distress and punitive damages, that are unavailable in the workers' compensation system. The case demonstrates the judiciary's role in harmonizing conflicting statutory schemes, elevating the public policy against discrimination over the long-standing policy of limited employer liability for workplace injuries. This precedent strengthens employee protections against harassment and increases employer accountability for maintaining a safe and non-hostile work environment.
