Employee Disciplined Beyond Exclusive Remedy By Robert Warne - July 8, 2003 Alameda County recently attempted to utilize the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation to shield its liability exposure to a workplace disciplinary dispute. But after the Court of Appeal in San Francisco got done with them, they found out the hard way that hiding behind the exclusive remedy for this particular matter proved as effective as hiding out in an Oklahoma trailer park during a tornado.
The problem began when Alameda County Supervising Probation Officer, Bonita Vinson applied to have her job upgraded in 1998 after she complained that she was working beyond the scope of her assigned job.
Her boss Sylvia Johnson, the now retired county probation chief, took offense and implemented a disciplinary action plan against Vinson.
Johnson’s two most damaging actions included an announcement at a staff meeting that Vinson would be reprimanded for her job performance and would have to write her own letter of reprimand.
The other occurred when Johnson distributed the staff meeting minutes to a larger group of employees with the disciplinary action highlighted on the page.
Originally an Alameda Superior Court jury awarded the defendant $41,000, but Judge John Kraetzer ended up reducing the award to $20,000. He believed Vinson should be awarded invasion of privacy damages because Johnson intentionally disseminated the disciplinary information to certain employees who had no reason to be informed, but he didn’t think Johnson’s actions amounted to retaliation.
The appeals court decision released to the public July 7; upheld Kraetzer’s ruling and rejected the county’s argument that Vinson should be limited to workers’ compensation benefits for emotional distress.
The court reasoned that the exclusive remedy is for physical or mental harm arising out of the normal employment relationship. But in cases like this one, employers may have to pay damages when they inflict harm that workers have no reason to expect.
|