Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co.
151 Ill. Dec. 560, 564 N.E.2d 1222, 139 Ill.2d 455 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act bars an employee from suing their employer for intentional torts committed by a co-employee, unless the employee can prove that the employer expressly commanded or authorized the tortious act. An allegation that the co-employee was acting within the scope of employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior is insufficient to overcome this bar.
Facts:
- Kenneth Meerbrey worked as a part-time cashier for Marshall Field & Company, and Tim Marcolini worked as a security guard for the same company.
- On January 19, 1985, Marcolini questioned Meerbrey in the store's security office regarding an alleged theft of approximately $600.
- During the interview, Meerbrey took a polygraph test and signed a restitution form and promissory note concerning the alleged theft, later paying Marshall Field $500.
- On February 12, 1985, Meerbrey returned to the store to collect his final payroll check.
- Marcolini and other security personnel arrested Meerbrey, forcibly took him to the security offices, and summoned the Chicago police.
- The police took Meerbrey into custody, escorted him through the store in handcuffs, and transported him to police headquarters.
- Another Marshall Field agent, Rochella Davis, filed a criminal complaint charging Meerbrey with criminal trespass.
- Meerbrey was tried for the offense, and the trial resulted in a finding in his favor.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Meerbrey sued Marshall Field & Company and its employee, Tim Marcolini, in the circuit court of Cook County for false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution.
- The trial court dismissed the claims against Marshall Field, holding they were barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
- The trial court also dismissed the false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution claims against Marcolini for failure to state a cause of action.
- Meerbrey, as appellant, appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of all claims against Marshall Field and affirmed the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim against Marcolini, but it reversed the dismissal of the false imprisonment and false arrest claims against Marcolini, allowing those to proceed.
- Meerbrey, as petitioner, was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
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 common law intentional tort claims against their employer when the torts were committed by a co-employee acting within the scope of employment, but without the employer's express authorization or command?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ward
Yes. The Workers’ Compensation Act's exclusivity provision bars an employee's common law action against their employer for an intentional tort committed by a co-employee unless the employer commanded or expressly authorized the act. From the employer's perspective, an intentional tort by one employee against another is an 'accidental' injury covered exclusively by the Act, because the employer did not direct or intend the specific tortious action. The legal justification for allowing a common law suit against an employer who personally commits an assault—that the employer cannot claim an intentional act was 'accidental'—does not apply when the assailant and the defendant are different entities and the employer is only being sued under a theory of respondeat superior. Therefore, a mere allegation that the tortfeasor-employee was acting within the scope of their employment is insufficient to pierce the immunity provided by the Act. However, the Act does not bar the injured employee from bringing a common law action directly against the co-employee who committed the intentional tort, as the co-employee cannot use the Act as a shield for their own intentional misconduct.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to hold an employer liable in tort for the intentional acts of its employees, distinguishing employer liability from co-employee liability. By rejecting 'scope of employment' as sufficient grounds, the court protects the quid pro quo of the workers' compensation system, preventing employers from facing large tort verdicts for employee misconduct they did not specifically direct. The ruling clarifies that respondeat superior is not an exception to the Act's exclusivity rule. This forces plaintiffs to plead and prove direct employer culpability—express authorization or command—which is a significantly higher burden, thereby channeling most workplace injury claims, even those arising from intentional torts by co-workers, into the workers' compensation system.
