Ezzy v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
48 Cal. Comp. Cases 611, 194 Cal. Rptr. 90, 146 Cal.App.3d 252 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained during an off-duty, employer-sponsored recreational activity is compensable under workers' compensation if the employee's participation is a "reasonable expectancy" of the employment. This reasonable expectancy is determined by a two-part test: (1) the employee subjectively believes participation is expected, and (2) that belief is objectively reasonable.
Facts:
- Marilyn Ezzy was employed as a law clerk for the law firm Gassett, Perry & Frank (GPF).
- GPF sponsored a coed softball team that played in a league composed primarily of other law firms.
- A partner at the firm, John Burton, coached the team and provided firm-funded equipment, custom T-shirts for all employees, and post-game refreshments.
- The league required a minimum of four women on each team, and Burton strongly encouraged female employees, including Ezzy, to play to ensure the team would not have to forfeit.
- Burton approached Ezzy, handed her a T-shirt and schedule, and said, 'At the next one we’ll see you there.'
- Ezzy felt pressured to play due to Burton's urgings, the firm's need for female players, and the general atmosphere of camaraderie the firm sought to create through the team.
- The firm also sponsored a post-season awards banquet and showed home movies of a game in the office during work hours.
- While playing in a game, Ezzy injured her finger attempting to catch a fly ball.
Procedural Posture:
- Marilyn Ezzy filed a workers' compensation claim for her injury.
- A workers' compensation judge found that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment.
- Ezzy filed a petition for reconsideration with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
- The WCAB denied Ezzy’s petition, affirming the judge's decision.
- Ezzy sought and was granted a writ of review by the California Court of Appeal, First District.
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 injury sustained during an off-duty, employer-sponsored recreational activity arise out of and in the course of employment where participation constitutes a 'reasonable expectancy' of the employment under Labor Code section 3600, subdivision (a)(8)?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
Yes, an injury sustained during such an activity arises out of and in the course of employment if participation is a reasonable expectancy. The court establishes a two-part test to determine if a recreational activity is a 'reasonable expectancy' of employment: (1) whether the employee subjectively believes his or her participation is expected by the employer, and (2) whether that belief is objectively reasonable. Here, Ezzy subjectively believed she was expected to play. This belief was objectively reasonable due to several factors: she was a junior employee vulnerable to pressure from a partner; the firm needed female players to avoid forfeiture; the firm derived a morale and camaraderie benefit; and the firm financed all aspects of the team, including equipment, shirts, food, and an awards banquet. The employer's failure to post a notice advising employees that such injuries might not be covered, while not a waiver, contributes to the coercive effect of the encouragement. Therefore, her injury is compensable.
Concurring - Rouse, Acting P. J.
Yes, the injury is compensable. While this is a close case and deference is typically given to the specialized workers' compensation judge, the decision must be consistent with prior cases involving similar facts where compensation was awarded. The primary function of an appellate court is to ensure uniformity and consistency in the law. This decision achieves that goal, and for that reason, I concur.
Analysis:
This case is significant as the first appellate decision to interpret Labor Code section 3600, subdivision (a)(8), which limits workers' compensation for injuries during off-duty recreational activities. It establishes the key 'reasonable expectancy' test, moving the analysis beyond whether participation was explicitly required. The two-prong subjective/objective test creates a new framework that holds employers accountable for subtle or indirect pressure on employees to participate in company-sponsored events. The ruling signals to employers that if they wish to avoid liability, they must ensure participation is genuinely voluntary and must not create an environment where a reasonable employee would feel compelled to join.
