Case Name: Caridad SANCHEZ, et al., Appellants, v. DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, etc., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-03-28
Citations: 784 So. 2d 1172
Docket Number: No. 3D00-1718
Parties: Caridad SANCHEZ, et al., Appellants, v. DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, etc., Appellee.
Judges: Before LEVY, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 784
Pages: 1172–1173

Head Matter:
Caridad SANCHEZ, et al., Appellants, v. DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, etc., Appellee.
No. 3D00-1718.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 28, 2001.
Rehearing En Banc Denied May 30, 2001.
Jack L. Herskowitz, and Jon Herskow-itz, Miami; and Dorothy F. Easley, Coral Gables, for appellants.
Pyszka, Blackmon, Levy- & Mowers, Miami Lakes, and Cindy J. Mishcon, for appellee.
Before LEVY, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Caridad Sanchez, a middle school teacher, sued the Dade County School Board for negligence after she was sexually assaulted and beaten during her lunch period by a trespasser in the teachers' parking lot. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the School Board based on its workers' compensation immunity. We agree that by accepting workers' compensation benefits, Sanchez was precluded from asserting a tort claim against her employer. See § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (1999). We recently held in Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Laing, 731 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) that the "unrelated works" exception to workers' compensation immunity did not apply between a teacher and a custodian. "The fact that employees have different duties does not necessarily mean they are involved in 'unrelated works.'... Because both were engaged in activities primarily related to the provision of education related services, the 'unrelated works' exception to the School Board's immunity under Section 440.11(1) does not apply." Id. at 20. We see no distinction between the teacher-custodian relationship in Laing and the teacher-security personnel relationship in this case.
We therefore affirm.