Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Disability Law Blogs -> Florida Workers’ Compensation Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Disability Law
: Florida Workers’ Compensation Law BlogEmployer Immune From Tort Liability for Employee's On-The-Job Sexual Assault by Co-Employee
By David A. McCranie, Esq.
In Doe v. Footstar Corp., the Second DCA affirmed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings in favor of the employer and concluded that the employee's civil action against it was barred by the "exclusive remedy" provision of §440.11. The employee (a minor, who brought the action through her parents) alleged in her complaint that Cooper, a co-employee, had assaulted and sexually battered her in the course of his employment with Footstar and that Footstar had negligently hired, retained, supervised, and trained Cooper.
The court had strongly hinted that it would reach this result when it considered this same case earlier. In this opinion from 2006, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Footstar's appeal at that time under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v). That rule provides appellate courts jurisdiction over orders determining that, "as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity." The court concluded that the trial court had merely denied Footstar's motion for summary judgment, that the order did not state, as a matter of law, that Footstar was not entitled to workers' compensation immunity, and that it did not enter judgment against Footstar on the issue of workers' compensation immunity.
Still, it seems to me that the court is assuming that the employee in this case has a workers' compensation remedy. Depending upon the particular facts of the case, she might not. See Liberty Correctional Institute v. Yon, 671 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In that case, the First DCA held that the employee, the victim of sexual harassment, sexual touching, and at least one episode of sexual intercourse by a co-employee had not suffered any physical injury, and therefore her psychological injuries were barred by §440.02(1), Fla. Stat. (1985)[now codified at §440.093, Fla. Stat.].
Full post as published by Florida Workers’ Compensation Law Blog on May 15, 2008 (boomark / email).
Employee Lawsuits (An Introduction and Topic Overview)
How employers can cope with the siege of employee lawsuits
Employee Lawsuits: Negligent Hiring and Retention
Employers must check references, criminal records, other background material.
Discouraging Union Organizers
Strict work place rules
Sex Offender Lists
Registries by State and County
Sexual Harassment Policy
Define harassment, outline complaint procedure
The Civil Rights Act of 1871
Law bans discrimination enacted under color of state law
Lexmark to Pay $8.3M in Employee Vacation Class Action
Lexmark to Pay $8.3M in Employee Vacation Class Action
Employee Stock Options
Alleged misrepresentations to employees.
Electronic Data Systems Corp.
allegedly failed to pay employee overtime.
Sprint Nextel
alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
Nortel
faces class action over changes to employee pension plan
Lehman Brothers
allegedly breached ERISA duties for employee savings plan participants.

Michigan Businesses Can Be Vicariously Liable for the Actions of Their Employees
Florida Jury Awards $5.4 Million Verdict In Sexual Harassment Case
A Release in a Settlement Agreement is Not Effective Until All Amounts Due are Paid
Employer Established Affirmative Defense To Sexual Harassment Complaint
What can an Indiana employer do about hiring an Employee who might have trade secrets







