Shoemaker v. Myers
801 P.2d 1054, 52 Cal.3d 1, 276 Cal. Rptr. 303 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Disabling injuries, whether physical or mental, arising from employment termination are generally within the exclusive remedy provisions of workers' compensation law, unless the discharge comes within an express or implied statutory exception or results from risks not reasonably deemed within the compensation bargain.
Facts:
- Jack Shoemaker served for nine years as an investigator for the Department of Health Services, maintaining an exemplary civil service record for 22 years.
- In 1980, Shoemaker was assigned to investigate allegations that family planning health care centers were operating illegally by using unlicensed personnel and that high Department officials, including Director Beverlee A. Myers, knew of and improperly approved funding for these practices.
- After Shoemaker reported his findings, his supervisors in the Division of Audits and Investigations, particularly Charles Shuttleworth, interfered with his investigation, forbade him from reporting findings, and threatened him.
- In December 1980, Shoemaker complained about the interference and asked to be relieved of the investigation, resulting in disciplinary counseling and further harassment from his supervisors.
- In November 1981, a psychiatrist mistakenly identified Shoemaker as an investigator who had harassed two patients in an unrelated investigation.
- After being orally interrogated twice, Shoemaker, on December 21, 1981, refused to answer further written questions about the misconduct charges without legal representation, citing the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.
- Shuttleworth fired Shoemaker for insubordination due to his assertion of the right to representation, and senior Department officials upheld the termination, effective January 11, 1982.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Jack Shoemaker filed an administrative appeal of his termination with the State Personnel Board.
- On January 26, 1982, the State Personnel Board ordered Shoemaker reinstated to his employment.
- On December 9, 1982, Shoemaker filed a civil action in state superior court (trial court) against the Department of Health Services and several individual officials.
- Shoemaker filed a verified first amended complaint, which included allegations of physical illness and disability resulting from defendants' actions.
- Defendants demurred to the first amended complaint; the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend for some causes of action (wrongful termination, whistleblower, public policy, emotional distress) on workers' compensation exclusivity grounds, and without leave for others.
- Shoemaker filed a verified second amended complaint, largely omitting references to physical injury, to which defendants again demurred.
- The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to the second amended complaint with leave to amend, noting that Shoemaker could not simply delete verified allegations of physical injury without explanation, and sustained it without leave for civil rights, injunction, and attorney fees claims.
- Shoemaker filed a third amended complaint, again alleging only emotional injury for certain causes of action.
- Defendants demurred to the third amended complaint; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that the claims were barred by workers' compensation exclusivity due to the physical injury allegations in the earlier verified complaint.
- The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal against Shoemaker.
- Shoemaker appealed the judgment of dismissal to the Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of most causes of action, concluding they were barred by workers' compensation exclusivity due to the physical injury allegations, but reversed the dismissal of the civil rights cause of action against individual defendants.
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 exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act bar civil claims for damages, including those alleging physical disability, arising from a wrongful employment termination that violates a specific whistleblower protection statute or fundamental public policy?
Opinions:
Majority - ARABIAN, J.
Yes, the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers' compensation law generally bar civil claims for disabling injuries arising from employment termination, but this bar does not apply to claims under specific statutory exceptions like whistleblower protection, nor potentially to claims for termination in violation of fundamental public policy, as such conduct falls outside the "compensation bargain." First, the court reiterated that material factual allegations in a verified pleading, such as Shoemaker's initial allegations of physical injury, cannot be omitted in subsequent amended pleadings without adequate explanation and must therefore be considered. The court then clarified that injuries, including psychological ones, resulting from employment termination or the actions leading up to it, generally "arise out of and in the course of employment" for workers' compensation purposes. Termination, like demotion or discipline, is considered a "normal part of the employment relationship" and thus falls within the scope of the "compensation bargain" (citing Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist. and Traub v. Board of Retirement). However, the court held that the workers' compensation exclusivity provisions do not bar a civil action for damages under Government Code section 19683, the whistleblower protection statute. The court reasoned that section 19683 is a more specific statute, distinct from the general workers' compensation scheme, and was intended to provide an "additional remedy" to encourage and protect the reporting of unlawful governmental activities and deter retaliation. To bar such claims would render the whistleblower statute meaningless, as such retaliatory conduct lies "well outside the compensation bargain." Conversely, the court affirmed that public employees cannot state a cause of action for breach of contract or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as public employment is statutory, not contractual (Miller v. State of California). Claims for "interference with business relationship and inducement of breach of contract" were also dismissed because supervisors acting as agents of the employer cannot be sued for inducing a breach of the employer's own contract. A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, if not based on a statutory violation but rather on intentional and malicious employer conduct, was deemed barred by workers' compensation exclusivity, consistent with Cole, as discipline is considered a normal part of employment. The court remanded the issue of wrongful termination in violation of fundamental public policy (Tameny) to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.
Concurring in judgment - Mosk, J.
Justice Mosk concurred in the judgment without providing separate reasoning in the excerpt provided.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the boundaries of California's workers' compensation exclusive remedy provisions, particularly regarding wrongful termination claims. It establishes that while most physical and psychological injuries arising from termination are generally covered by workers' compensation, explicit statutory protections, such as whistleblower laws, carve out exceptions. This ruling reinforces the principle that employer conduct which contravenes specific legislative mandates or fundamental public policy can fall outside the traditional 'compensation bargain,' thereby allowing employees to pursue tort remedies. It provides crucial support for whistleblowers, encouraging them to report improper governmental activities by offering robust legal recourse beyond workers' compensation for retaliatory actions.
