Clark v. Means
Pen.Sup. CV-01-170 01/15/2002
HJELM
The dismissal of a claim for employer immunity under the Act must turn on a detailed examination of the facts.
The plaintiff filed suit alleging that her supervisor, who was also the sole owner and president of the company, had sexually harassed her, both inside and outside of the workplace. She claimed invasion of privacy as well as infliction of emotional distress.
The employer argued for dismissal of certain of the claims, arguing that because the alleged misconduct occurred in the workplace, the suit was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act.
Justice Hjelm denied the defendant's motions to dismiss on two grounds. First, he found that the complaint did not allege that the defendant provided workers' compensation coverage to his employees.
Secondly, even if the Workers' Compensation Act applied because of the employee's receipt of comp benefits, the dismissal of a claim on the grounds of employer immunity must turn on factual development, Cole v. Chandler (752 A.2d 1189, 2000). As Justice Hjelm stated, the "substantive determination" of whether a defendant has immunity under the Act "turns on a wide examination of factors"; pleadings alone do not contain those factors in sufficient scope or depth to make a decision.
The court did not address whether the claims could be dismissed in the event of a motion for summary judgment.
Nolette v. Interstate Brands Corp.
York Sup. CV-01-214 02/22/2002
FRITZSCHE
Employer ordered to pay reinstatement benefits, plus lost fringe benefits, from the date that the hearing officer ordered reinstatement to denial of the employer's motion to enjoin reinstatement.
The Superior Court affirmed a 2001 hearing officer decision ordering that the employee be reinstated in this procedurally complicated case.
The employee underwent work-related surgery in 2000 and was released to light-duty work in October 2000. When the employer failed to reinstate him, he filed petitions for award, review and reinstatement. On 7/21/2001, Hearing Officer Johnson awarded the employee total benefits from 10/30/2000 and ordered the employer to reinstate him to his former position. When the employer did not fully comply, the employee obtained a pro forma decree from the Superior Court in August 2001 to enforce the hearing officer's decision.
The employee then filed a motion for remedial sanctions for the employer's failure to reinstate him earlier. In the meantime, the employer filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law with the hearing officer, a United States District Court motion for an injunction against the reinstatement, and a Superior Court motion for reconsideration or relief from judgment. In October 2001, meanwhile, the full WC Board agreed to hear the employer's appeal of the hearing officer's decision.
The hearing officer denied the employer's motion for further findings while the District Court denied its motion for an injunction to stop the reinstatement. The employee returned to work on 11/3/2001, and began to receive his compensation benefits. The employer also agreed to forego Board review of the case.
In this petition to the Superior Court, the employee claims entitlement to lost wages and fringe benefits from 7/20/2001, the date of the hearing officer's decision of reinstatement, through 10/13/2001, the date of denial of the employer's injunction motion. The employee also petitioned for attorney's fees for contempt of court.
Justice Fritzsche first denied the motion for attorney's fees as he found the employer was never in contempt. As he explained, a reinstatement order - unlike one for compensation payments - is stayed pending appeal. Therefore, the employer was not in contempt for failing to offer reinstatement until its appeals were exhausted. Thus, no sanctions were warranted.
Justice Fritzsche did order the employer to pay the employee the difference between the employee's gross pay and the weekly compensation benefits from 7/20/2001 to 10/13/2001, as well as lost fringe benefits for that time period.
