Opinion ID: 2071088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chandler and Buckley

Text: [¶ 9] As against Chandler and Buckley, Cole argues that, one, the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act was not intended to apply to injury to reputation because such a claim would not be compensable under the Act and, two, even if the exclusivity provision would otherwise apply, it does not apply in this case because Cole's injuries did not occur in the course of employment. Under Maine's Workers' Compensation Act, in order for an injury to be compensable, the employee must 1) suffer a personal injury, 2) that arises out of and 3) in the course of employment. Knox v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 542 A.2d 363, 366 (Me.1988). [2] The exclusivity provision is found in 39-A M.R.S.A. § 104, and provides in pertinent part as follows: An employer who has secured the payment of compensation ... is exempt from civil actions, either at common law..., involving personal injuries sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of employment .... These exemptions from liability apply to all employees, supervisors, officers and directors of the employer for any personal injuries arising out of and in the course of employment .... 39-A M.R.S.A. § 104 (Supp.1999). [¶ 10] Although this is a case of first impression, we are guided by our developing case law. We have consistently applied a broad and encompassing construction to the exclusivity provision. See Beverage v. Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc., 502 A.2d 486, 489 (Me.1985); Li v. C.N. Brown Co., 645 A.2d 606, 607 (Me.1994). In Beverage we stated the purpose of the Workers' Compensation Act as follows: The `legislative intendment in enacting the comprehensive scheme for worker's compensation' was to `giv[e] effect to the underlying policy of providing certainty of remedy to the injured employee and absolute but limited and determinate liability for the employer.' Id. at 489 (citation omitted). [3] We further noted that [i]f few occasions remain for employees to bring civil actions in tort against employers, such is merely the inevitable consequence of the legislature's extension of the coverage of workers' compensation. Id. [¶ 11] We have refused to carve out an exception for intentional torts. See Li v. C.N. Brown Co., 645 A.2d 606 (Me.1994). In Li the employee of defendant was killed when a former employee robbed the store and stabbed the employee; the employer allegedly knew of the intended armed robbery but did not close the store where the employee was working alone. See id. at 607. The plaintiff argued that the exclusivity and immunity provisions should not apply to injuries to employees caused by intentional torts. We found, however, that the Act applied to all work-related injuries and deaths, however caused, not just accidental injuries and deaths. Id. at 608. We decline[d] to create a judicial exception to the exclusivity and immunity provisions for employers' intentional torts, noting that if the Legislature intended to exclude intentional acts, it could have created the exception. Id. [¶ 12] We also have not required that the excluded claims be compensable. See Knox v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 542 A.2d 363 (Me.1988). In Knox, the plaintiff brought a civil action alleging assault and battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision of her supervisor by the employer. She sought compensatory and punitive damages, including mental injuries, caused by sexual assaults and harassments committed upon her by her supervisor. See id. at 364. We determined that, because injuries arising from assaults have been held compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, no reason exists to distinguish between sexual assaults and non-sexual assaults for purposes of coverage under the Act. See id. at 365. We noted that under the right set of facts, mental or physical injuries from sexual assault could be compensable injuries under the Act. See id. We also noted that [l]ikewise, injuries resulting from acts of sexual harassment are not excluded from the Act's coverage solely because of the sexual nature of the harassment. Id. at 365-66. [¶ 13] We do not rely on labels or the formal designation of a tort action to determine whether a claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. Rather, we look to the gist of the action and the nature of the damages sought to determine whether the claim for injury is excluded. See 6 ARTHUR LARSON, LARSON'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, § 104.05[1], at 18 (1999). The coverage and exclusivity provisions begin with a focus on personal injuries. Cole's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress seeks a recovery only for mental injuries. As we have held in the past, mental injuries constitute personal injuries within the meaning of the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act and thus an independent claim is barred. See Knox v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 542 A.2d 363 (Me.1988). Cole's claims for defamation, invasion of privacy and interference with advantageous economic relations, however, are broad enough to include recovery for economic injuries, as well as mental or physical injuries. As with the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, any mental or physical injuries included within these claims are personal injuries and thus recovery is barred by the exclusivity provision. On the other hand, the economic or reputational injuries, if any, do not constitute personal injuries, as they are not physical or mental injuries. Therefore, the recovery of such damages is not precluded by the exclusivity provision. [¶ 14] Concerning those claims that constitute personal injuries under the Act, Cole argues that, even if the exclusivity provision applies in general, it would not apply in this case because the injuries did not occur in the course of employment. The purpose the coverage formula seeks to effectuate is `to compensate employees for injuries suffered while and because they were at work.' Comeau v. Maine Coastal Servs., 449 A.2d 362, 366 (Me.1982) (citations omitted). The determination turns on an issue of fact. See Knox v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 542 A.2d 363, 366 (Me.1988). The question is whether the injury `occurs within the period of employment at a place where the employee reasonably may be in the performance of his duties and while he is fulfilling those duties or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.' Hebert v. International Paper Co., 638 A.2d 1161, 1162 (Me.1994) (citations omitted); see also Comeau v. Maine Coastal Servs., 449 A.2d 362, 367 (Me.1982). [¶ 15] Cole argues that his injuries occurred at the time he was terminated while he was at home and compares himself to the defendant in Hebert. In Hebert, however, the plaintiff had been home for a month as a result of falling down stairs at the plant when his brother brought to his house a sign that allegedly had been posted at the mill questioning the sincerity of his fall and resultant back injury. See id. at 1161-62. It was the posting of the sign that caused him the emotional distress and not the injury at work. Therefore, we found that because he was at home at the time, it did not occur in the course of employment. See id. at 1162-63. [¶ 16] The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Cole, however, reveals that in this case the allegedly defamatory statements were made by Chandler and Buckley during the preliminary investigation of Cole for inappropriate behavior in the workplace while Cole was employed at Mead and while he was in his office performing his functions as controller and head of the financial department. As a result of these interviews, the human resources person at Mead met with Cole in Cole's office, explained the concerns raised by the investigation, including the specific allegations, and placed Cole on suspension pending further investigation. After further investigation, while Cole was at home on suspension, Mead terminated Cole by phone. Thus, the alleged slander and the damage would necessarily have occurred at the place of employment while he was still in the performance of his duties before he was suspended. Therefore, his personal injuries, if any, arose out of and in the course of his employment and are precluded by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.
[¶ 17] Notwithstanding that Cole's claim for invasion of privacy is not precluded by the exclusivity provision to the extent of any economic damages incurred, it fails nonetheless. The claim is based on publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. See Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, 365 A.2d 792, 795 (Me.1976). Cole alleges in his complaint that Chandler's and Buckley's statements put him in a false light with Mead, other potential employers, and the general public. Liability for publicity placing a person in a false light is defined as follows: One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652E (1977). Publicity is defined as follows: Publicity, as it is used in this Section, differs from publication, as that term is used in § 577 in connection with liability for defamation. Publication, in that sense, is a word of art, which includes any communication by the defendant to a third person. Publicity, on the other hand, means that the matter is made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D cmt. a (1977). [¶ 18] Cole failed to generate any genuine issue through his statement of material facts that either Chandler or Buckley communicated their comments to the public or to so many persons that it would be certain to become public knowledge. Therefore, his claims for invasion of privacy against both Chandler and Buckley fail. [¶ 19] Moreover, to the extent that the claims of defamation and interference with economic relations include economic injuries, Chandler is entitled to a conditional privilege similar to Mead Corporation. See Gautschi v. Maisel, 565 A.2d 1009 (Me.1989). Because Cole conceded that the statements made by Chandler were substantially true, he failed to demonstrate that Chandler acted with any malice and accordingly failed to demonstrate that she abused her privilege. As to Buckley, however, because Cole denied making the statements attributed to him, he produced evidence for purposes of summary judgment that she knew her statements to be false. Thus, we find for purposes of summary judgment that Cole raised a genuine issue of material fact that Buckley abused her conditional privilege. For the same reasons, we find that he raised a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment as to his claims for defamation and interference with economic relations against Buckley to the extent that such claims seek recovery for injuries other than personal injuries. The entry is: Judgments in favor of Mead Corporation and Brenda Chandler affirmed; judgment in favor of Pola Buckley affirmed as to claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and punitive damages and as to claims for defamation and interference with economic relations to the extent of any claims for personal injuries; judgment in favor of Buckley vacated as to claims for defamation and interference with economic relations to the extent of any claim for injuries other than personal injuries.