Opinion ID: 2631046
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Employment practices liability provision

Text: ¶ 36 The employment practices liability provision states that Fireman's will defend any claim brought against the insured even if the allegations of the claim are groundless, false or fraudulent. NSW at 000094. It further states, in pertinent part, that Fireman's will pay all sums which you . . . are legally required to pay as damages as a result of sexual harassment, discrimination, or wrongful discharge that arise out of a wrongful employment practice. Id. Woo and Fireman's do not argue that anything other than wrongful discharge applies here. Wrongful discharge is defined, in pertinent part, as the unfair or unjust termination of an employment relationship which . . . inflicts emotional distress upon the employee, defames the employee, [or] invades the employee's privacy. NSW at 000106. Wrongful employment practice is defined, in pertinent part, as any negligent act, error, omission, or breach of duty committed in the course of . . . relations with employees. Id. ¶ 37 Woo argues Fireman's had a duty to defend him under the employment practices liability provision because Alberts' complaint can reasonably be read to include allegations of negligent acts that led to an involuntary or constructive discharge. [7] Fireman's counters that even if the joke qualified as a wrongful employment practice, it did not trigger the duty to defend because the complaint did not allege that the wrongful discharge arose out of the wrongful employment practice and that the emotional distress resulted from the wrongful discharge. Instead, Fireman's argues Alberts alleged that the wrongful employment practice caused her emotional distress and the emotional distress caused her to leave her job. The Court of Appeals agreed, basing its conclusion that Alberts did not allege constructive discharge on the fact that the complaint did not allege violation of an employment contractonly violation of the insurance policy to which she was not a party. Woo, 128 Wash.App. at 105, 114 P.3d 681. ¶ 38 Alberts' complaint alleged that Woo frequently taunted her about her potbellied pigs. It also alleged that after the office staff showed her the photographs she assisted with a surgical procedure and during that procedure Woo told her she could take the boar tusk flippers home as a trophy. After the procedure, Alberts collapsed in tears and then told the office manager not to have anyone contact her, went home, and never returned. These facts indicate that Alberts' emotional distress resulted from the taunting and the practical joke, not from a wrongful discharge. Thus, they do not meet the definition of wrongful discharge under Woo's policy. ¶ 39 We conclude Fireman's had no duty to defend under Woo's employment practices liability provision because Alberts' complaint clearly did not allege actions that met the definition of wrongful discharge under the policy.