Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Secur., Inc. - 552 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1989)

Rule:

The exclusivity rule of the workers' compensation statute should not exist to shield an employer from all tort liability based on incidents of sexual harassment. The clear public policy emanating from federal and Florida law holds that an employer is charged with maintaining a workplace free from sexual harassment. Applying the exclusivity rule of workers' compensation to preclude any and all tort liability effectively would abrogate this policy, undermine the Florida Human Rights Act, and flout Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This cannot be condoned. Public policy now requires that employers be held accountable in tort for the sexually harassing environments they permit to exist, whether the tort claim is premised on a remedial statute or on the common law.

Facts:

The plaintiffs, all female employees, brought claims for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and retention of employees. These claims were based on incidents in which male employees repeatedly touched the women and made verbal sexual advances on them in the workplace during work hours. In their suit, the women claimed this resulted in emotional anguish and stress. The trial court dismissed the complaint on grounds that the workers' compensation statute provided the exclusive remedy for the women. On appeal, the Second District affirmed.

Issue:

Did the workers' compensation statute provide the exclusive remedy for a claim based on sexual harassment in the workplace?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court found that the application of exclusivity would have undermined the Florida Human Rights Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 760.101(a), as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Workers' compensation protection was aimed to protect economic injury, while sexual discrimination statutes were concerned with more intangible injury to personal rights. Both rights were separable and their protection was meant to be enforced separately. Additionally, sexual harassment was not and could not be recognized as a risk inherent in any work environment, and therefore did not satisfy the first prong of the workers' compensation type of injury approach. Sexual harassment claims were not, therefore, barred by the workers' compensation exclusivity rule.