Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00573/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00573-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 WESTERN DIVISION

PLAINTIFF

ANGELA OWENS

vs. CASE NO. 4:06CV573GH

ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action bringing claims of race and sex discrimination pursuant to

Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, retaliation under Title VII, and the torts of outrage and

negligent supervision under state law. The outrage claim was dismissed as to defendant

Tucker by Order entered October 30, 2006.

Defendant Alltel has filed a motion for summary judgment with regard to the tort

of outrage and negligent supervision claims against it. Alltel contends that the exclusivity

provision of the Arkansas Worker’s Compensation Act precludes plaintiff’s negligent

supervision claim. 

Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that on January 20, 2005, she was kicked by

Tucker, an employee of defendant Alltel. In paragraph 19 of her complaint, plaintiff

contends that she suffered emotional distress based on Tucker’s action. She further

contends that “Alltel’s failure to take immediate and appropriate action in response to

Plaintiff’s complaint of a physical kick by . . . Tucker caused plaintiff . . . emotional

distress.”

In paragraph 20 of the complaint, plantiff alleges that “Alltel has a duty to

adequately supervise employees. Defendant Alltel breached that duty by allowing . . .

Tucker to kick her. Defendant Alltel’s negligence caused the platiniff to suffer emotional

distress.” 

Case 4:06-cv-00573-JMM Document 21 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 3
-2-

Around February 11, 2005 plaintiff made a worker’s compensation claim based on

the January 20th incident. She received compensation for medical treatment through the

worker’s compensation carrier. 

“The general rule is that an injured employee's right to recover for job-related

injuries is exclusively under the Workers' Compensation Act. However, when the

employee is able to show actual, specific and deliberate intent by the employer to injure

him, he may avoid the exclusive remedy under the Workers' Compensation law and

proceed in a common law tort action.” Sontag v. Orbit Valve Co., Inc., 283 Ark. 191, 194

(1984). Significantly, the court in Sontag then stated:

Whenever an employee is injured by the willful and malicious acts of his

employer he may treat the acts of the employer as a breach of the

employer-employee relationship and seek full damages in a common law

action. However, he must elect one or the other . . . An election once made

and pursued to recovery prevents a subsequent claim to the other type of

relief.

Id.

Thus, the employee can purpose her claim for damages either in tort or under the

Workers’ Compensation Act. However, once the employee makes that election, she may

not later avail herself of the remedy not chose. Western Waste Indus. v. Purifoy, 326 Ark.

235, 259 (1996). See also Gourley v. Crossett Pub. Sch., 333 Ark. 178 (1998)(plaintiff’s

claim for intentional tort of outrage barred by doctrine of election of remedies because

plaintiff had previously pursued workers’ compensation benefits for same injuries). 

The case relied upon by plaintiff is inapposite. There is no doubt that plaintiff’s

discrimination claim under Title VII is not barred by the Worker’s Compensation Act.

Davis v. Dillmeier Enterprises, Inc., 330 Ark. 545 (1997). The court in Davis, however,

distinguished between the actual workplace physical injury and the subsequent “injury”

the plaintiff sustained arising from the employer’s alleged handicap discrimination. The

Case 4:06-cv-00573-JMM Document 21 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

court noted that the injuries were of a different nature, arose at different times in the

plaintiff’s work history, and required different causal factors. 

Here, plaintiff’s claim for damages arises out of the January 20, 2005 incident

involving her co-worker. She elected to pursue worker’s compensation benefits for

damages sustained. Having elected that remedy, she is barred from pursuing a common

law tort action against Alltel.

According, the motion for summary judgment on the pendent state claims is

granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2007

. ___________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-00573-JMM Document 21 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 3