The state Supreme Court has ruled that employees who receive benefits under the state Workers’ Compensation law may still sue their employer under the state Civil Rights Act.
The ruling will make it easier for employees who have already received workers’ compensation benefits to file civil rights law suits in state rather than federal court, where restrictions on the amounts that an employer can be forced to pay apply, lawyers who handled the case said. There are no such limits in state court, meaning the number of employee-civil rights cases filed there will likely increase, they said.
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
The ruling also strikes down the argument, held by the defendants in the Supreme Court case, that the ‘exclusivity’ clause of the state’s Workers’ Compensation law bars employees from suing their employer in state court after they have already received compensation for lost work time in Workers’ Compensation Court.
This is the first time the Court has allowed an exception to the exclusivity clause, according to Gregory L. Boyer, a Providence lawyer who argued on behalf of the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case.
“Now it is clear that the victim of discrimination and harassment may pursue both claims,” added Robert E. Savage, who filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union and the Rhode Island affiliates of the National Employment Lawyers Association.
The case stems from a complaint filed by Carol B. Folan, a child protective investigator with the state Department of Children, Youth, and Families, who alleged that her supervisor, Frederick Lumb sexually harassed her in the time period between 1992 and 1995, and that the department did not do enough to prevent the alleged harassment from occurring.
Asked if Lumb maintains that he is innocent of these charges, Sandra Lanni, his lawyer who represented him in the case, said “absolutely.”
The state Attorney General’s office, which represented the department, declined comment.
The alleged harassment allegedly included “physical assaultsattempts to molest her, sending gifts and flowers, writing notes, and implying a sexual affair to other coworkers” according to Rhode Island Chief Justice Joseph R. Weisberger’s opinion that he filed on the case.
The alleged harassment, the opinion stated, prompted the Workers’ Compensation Court to rule that she had suffered “occupational stress” while working at the department.
Workers’ Compensation Court then ordered the department to pay benefits for “total incapacity,” to Folan.
Then, challenging the notion that that was as far as she could go with her case, Folan filed a law suit in state Superior Court under the state Civil Rights Act of 1990 and the state Fair Employment Practices Act, alleging that her emotional problems were caused by the alleged harassment she suffered at work.
Superior Court Judge Ronald Gagnon dismissed the case, saying the exclusivity clause of the Workers’ Compensation law applies here, as it does in other cases in which employees are entitled to workers comp. benefits but not other legal remedies.
When the state Workers’ Compensation law was enacted in 1912, it created a compromise agreement between workers and employers. Workers could receive benefits for accidental injuries they received on the job, regardless of whether the employer was at fault.
Under the law, injured workers may receive 75 percent of their spend-able – after tax – wages. The tradeoff, however, was that the exclusivity clause prevented injured workers from pursuing claims in state court, where they could get more money but would have a more difficult time winning.
However, in 1949 the state enacted the Fair Employment Practices Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, or national origin. And the state Civil Rights Act of 1990 extends similar protections to all state citizens.
An employee who wins a sexual harassment claim is entitled to full back-pay, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, according to a statement prepared by Savage.
In making its ruling in favor of Folan, the Supreme Court said that applying the exclusivity clause in this case would “frustrate a broad, fundamental public policy which fulfills paramount purposes, such as a claim under the FEPA of the CRA.”
Now, the case has been sent back to Superior Court, where the defendants will file an answer to the complaint presented by Folan.
