Herrick v. Quality Hotels, Inns & Resorts, Inc.
93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8274, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 203, 19 Cal.App.4th 1608 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The workers' compensation exclusivity rule does not bar an employee from bringing a civil action for damages against an employer when the injury is caused by a supervisor's willful physical assault that is subsequently ratified by a managerial employee.
Facts:
- Drew Herrick worked as a security guard for Quality Hotels, Inns and Resorts, Inc. (Quality).
- Herrick's supervisor, Steve Wilson, carried a gun on the hotel premises in violation of company policy.
- The hotel's general manager, Waddah Anani, was aware that Wilson carried a gun but told Herrick not to worry about it.
- Anani had previously witnessed Wilson being arrested for a physical altercation with another female employee.
- On March 10, 1990, Wilson attempted to terminate Herrick's employment.
- When Herrick refused to sign the termination notice and stated his intent to speak with Anani, Wilson drew his gun, pointed it at Herrick, and threatened to kill him.
- Herrick immediately reported the incident to Anani, who arranged a meeting with both Herrick and Wilson.
- In the meeting, Anani sided with Wilson, stated he did not believe Herrick, took no action against Wilson, and later gave Wilson a promotion.
Procedural Posture:
- Drew Herrick filed a complaint against Quality Hotels, Inns and Resorts, Inc. in a California trial court for intentional infliction of emotional injury.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a special verdict in favor of Herrick.
- The jury found that Wilson threatened Herrick with a pistol, acted with intent to cause injury within the scope of his employment, and that a managerial employee, Anani, ratified the act.
- The jury awarded Herrick $200 in medical expenses and $40,000 for pain and suffering.
- In a subsequent phase of the trial, the jury awarded Herrick $150,000 in punitive damages against Quality.
- Quality filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- However, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award from $150,000 to $75,000.
- Quality (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of California, Second District.
- Herrick (appellee and cross-appellant) also appealed, challenging the trial court's reduction of the punitive damage award.
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 Workers' Compensation Act bar an employee's civil lawsuit against their employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress when a supervisor commits a willful physical assault, such as threatening the employee with a gun, and a manager subsequently ratifies that conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Lillie, P. J.
No, the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act does not bar the employee's lawsuit. An employee may bring a civil action for damages against an employer when their injury is proximately caused by a willful physical assault by the employer or its agent. The court reasoned that the jury's findings established the applicability of the statutory exception for a 'willful physical assault' under Labor Code section 3602(b)(1). Citing precedent, the court held that a 'physical assault' does not require battery or bodily contact; conduct that a reasonable person would perceive as a 'real, present and apparent threat of bodily harm,' such as aiming a gun, is sufficient. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence that Quality, through its general manager Anani, ratified Wilson's conduct. Anani's knowledge of Wilson's prior misconduct and possession of guns, combined with his decision to believe Wilson over Herrick, take no disciplinary action, and later promote Wilson, constituted ratification, making the employer liable for the assault and the resulting damages.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'willful physical assault' exception to workers' compensation exclusivity. It establishes that a credible threat of violence, such as pointing a gun at an employee, constitutes a 'physical assault' under the statute even without any physical contact. The case also provides a strong example of employer ratification, demonstrating that a manager's failure to investigate and discipline a supervisor for violent misconduct, coupled with subsequent rewards like a promotion, can bind the company to the supervisor's tortious actions and expose it to both compensatory and punitive damages.
