In a December opinion, Trivette v. Yount, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that a Caldwell County public school employee stated a
valid negligence cause of action against her school’s principal for an injury
suffered on the job. In so ruling, the
Court determined that the school’s principal and the subordinate employee
constituted co-employees. This
relationship, the Court found, was not subject to the exclusivity provision of
North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act – even though the injury occurred on
the job and even though the plaintiff was simultaneously pursing a workers’
compensation claim before the North Carolina Industrial Commission.
The facts of the case are somewhat bizarre. The plaintiff testified that a student had
pulled the safety pin from a fire extinguisher and sprayed it in a
classroom. The extinguisher was then
brought to the area where the plaintiff’s desk and the principal’s office were
located. The next day, the principal
placed the extinguisher on the corner of the plaintiff’s desk. After the plaintiff asked the principal to remove
the extinguisher and replace its safety pin, the principal allegedly scoffed
and continued “playing” with the extinguisher while joking around with another
secretary. The extinguisher then
discharged, causing a fine powdery mist to land on the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the substance
aggravated her myasthenia gravis, a pre-existing medical condition that had
been in remission. She filed a claim
with the North Carolina Industrial Commission seeking workers’ compensation
benefits and also filed a separate lawsuit against the principal for additional
damages. Her husband joined in the
lawsuit with a claim of his own for loss of consortium.
The defendant-principal moved to dismiss the lawsuit on
grounds that North Carolina’s Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff’s claim. The
defendant alternatively moved for summary judgment on grounds that the alleged
conduct did not rise to a sufficient level of culpability even if the
exclusivity provision did not bar the claim.
In opposing the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff argued that
her suit was permissible under an exception to the exclusivity provision of the
Workers’ Compensation Act. That
exception, known as the Pleasant
exception, allows an injured worker to sue a co-employee for “intentional
injuries,” a term defined to include injuries resulting from willful, wanton,
and reckless negligence.
In assessing whether the plaintiff’s action could fall
within the Pleasant exception, the
critical issue was whether the school principal constituted the plaintiff’s co-worker. The Pleasant
exception would allow the action if he was a co-worker. If, on the other hand, the principal were
deemed the plaintiff’s employer, rather than a co-worker, the exclusive remedy provision
of the Workers’ Compensation Act would preclude the action.
In order to resolve the issue, the Court closely examined
the nature of the working relationship between the two parties. The Court recognized that the defendant, as
school principal, was an agent of the school board. The Court also agreed that the
defendant-principal held supervisory authority over the plaintiff. Neither fact, however, was
determinative.
Instead, the Court turned to N.C.G.S. § 115C-276(j), which indicates that
every person employed in North Carolina’s public schools (other than charter
schools) is an employee of the local board of education. On this basis, the Court concluded that the
defendant-principal and the plaintiff were both employees of the Caldwell County Board of Education. Consequently,
the Court affirmed the lower courts’ determination that the plaintiff stated a
permissible cause of action under the Pleasant
exception to worker’s compensation exclusivity.
In further support of its opinion, the Supreme Court also
approved of several North Carolina Court of Appeals decisions, which have
previously held that supervisors and those they supervise should be treated as
co-employees under the Workers’ Compensation Act. By aligning itself with these cases, the
North Carolina Supreme Court leaves no question that supervisors, in cases of
willful, wanton, or reckless negligence, can be sued for work place injuries
despite the availability of workers’ compensation benefits.
As noted earlier, the defendant also moved for summary judgment on grounds that his alleged misconduct did not arise to a sufficient level of culpability to support a liability finding under Pleasant in any event. Please return soon for discussion of the outcome of this separate, but equally important North Carolina employment law ruling.
