Grimes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
141 N.M. 249, 2007 NMCA 028, 154 P.3d 64 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's injury arises out of and in the course of employment for workers' compensation purposes if the employee's actions, even if seemingly exceeding explicit job duties, constitute a good faith exercise of judgment in serving the employer's interests and do not violate a clear and specific employer policy or instruction of which the employee was aware that limited the scope of their work.
Facts:
- Andre Grimes accepted employment as a 'greeter' for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. due to work restrictions based on a prior compensable injury.
- Grimes' primary job duties included greeting customers, helping with directions/returns, checking receipts, deactivating security tags, and monitoring entrances/exits for 'shrink' (shoplifting) and potential security risks.
- The written job description for a greeter also stated responsibilities to 'stop Customers whose merchandise activates the alarm, compares merchandise to purchase receipt' and to 'Monitors entrances and exits for signs of shrink and potential security risks and contacts management and/or In-Store Loss Prevention when problems are identified.'
- A customer left the Wal-Mart store, setting off a security alarm, indicating unpaid merchandise.
- Grimes apprehended this customer, taking them to the floor and handcuffing them.
- Grimes was allegedly injured during the apprehension process.
- Grimes had not been trained in security issues or apprehension, was not issued handcuffs, and was unaware of Wal-Mart's written shoplifter apprehension policy, which restricted apprehension to specific management or loss prevention personnel.
- A fellow greeter, Louis R. Maez, who provided some orientation to Grimes, told him he should use his judgment, be courteous, and not confrontational.
Procedural Posture:
- Worker Andre Grimes sought workers’ compensation benefits from Employer Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
- The workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that Grimes’ accident did not arise out of his employment and did not occur within the course and scope of his employment as a greeter.
- Worker Andre Grimes appealed the WCJ's finding.
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 by a 'greeter' while apprehending a shoplifter arise out of and in the course of employment, when the employer's policies on apprehension are unclear or unknown to the employee, and the employee believes they are acting in the employer's interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Sutin, Chief Judge
Yes, Worker Andre Grimes' accident did arise out of and occurred within the course and scope of his employment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record as a whole and found insufficient evidence to support the workers' compensation judge's conclusion. An injury occurs in the course of employment when it takes place within the period of employment, at a place where the employee may reasonably be, and while the employee is reasonably fulfilling the duties of employment or doing something incidental to it. While violation of specific instructions limiting the scope of work can bar recovery, the court found no clear and specific Employer policy or instruction that Grimes disobeyed or was aware of, which would prohibit him from apprehending a shoplifter in this manner. The job description included stopping customers whose merchandise activated alarms and monitoring for security risks. Employer's head of security stated greeters were 'not to let the merchandise leave' but also 'can’t physically touch the person if this person is going to walk out,' creating ambiguity. Another greeter testified they 'had to use our own judgment as far as security.' The court concluded Grimes' actions were a good faith exercise of judgment in attempting to serve Employer’s interests, citing Garcia v. Homestake Mining Co., Gough v. Famariss Oil & Refining Co., and Stebens v. K-Mart Corp. for the relevant legal principles.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard for 'arising out of and in the course of employment' when an employee's actions might exceed specific duties, particularly in ambiguous policy environments. It emphasizes the need for clear, specific instructions from employers to limit the scope of an employee's work and suggests that a 'good faith exercise of judgment' in the employer's interest can qualify for workers' compensation. The ruling may encourage employers to be more explicit in job descriptions and training regarding prohibited actions to avoid liability for injuries sustained during unauthorized but well-intentioned acts.
