|
In a decision issued on September 22, 2004, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals for District II, located in Waukesha, found that an employee’s action against her employer for negligent hiring, training and supervision was barred by the exclusive remedy defense under the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Act.
Facts
In Peterson v. Arlington Hospitality Staffing, Inc., et al., the plaintiff was an employee of a hotel in Whitewater, Wisconsin that was owned and operated by Arlington. While working in the hotel, she was sexually assaulted by a coworker. The coworker had a lengthy history of criminal conduct.
The employee brought an action against her employer alleging that the employer “knew or should have known” that the employee had previous instances of sexual assault, and despite these past experiences, he was employed without advising the employee or other employees of this past history.
The employee went on and claimed that her employer was negligent in not advising her of the coworker’s propensities and past experiences. The employee alleged that as a result of this sexual assault, she sustained mental anguish and harm requiring medical treatment and causing wage loss and permanent injury.
The Court's Reasoning
The Court of Appeals sustained the Circuit Court’s granting of summary judgment to the employer. The Court reasoned that the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Act provides the “exclusive remedy” for employees against their employers. This Act represents the legislative compromise between the interest of employers, employees, and the public in resolving compensation disputes regarding work related physical or mental harm arising in the employment context. These policy considerations reflect good public policy. Allowing the employee to proceed on her negligence claims would potentially upset the delicate balance of interest the Legislature and members of the [Worker’s Compensation] Advisory Council have attempted to achieve. The Court refused to do so.
Most important, the Court distinguished a prior Court of Appeals case, Lentz v. Young, decided in 1995, which held that the exclusive remedy did not prohibit an employee’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by the sexual harassment of her employer. The Court distinguished the Lentz holding because it involved intentional conduct by the employer, not a co-employee. The Court went on to remark that the Lentz case presented a unique situation because the offender was a sole proprietor, and therefore, was the “employer.” Also, the Peterson case did not involve the employer’s intentional acts of sexual assault, but rather the employer’s alleged negligence in not closely monitoring its hiring, training and supervision policies. Finally, the Court rejected the constitutional claim brought by the employee that the exclusive remedy under the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Act denied her due process and equal protection under the law.
Conclusion
Based on how this matter was litigated at the Court of Appeals level, including the number of arguments offered by the employee, and the facts, it is likely that Wisconsin Supreme Court review will be sought. Whenever an employer is sued and the employee brings any type of tort (negligence/intentional acts) claim, the matter should be scrutinized to see if the Worker’s Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision provides a partial or full defense.
If you have questions concerning the Peterson decision or any other employment law issues, please contact our educational services department at (414)988-8400.
|
