By: Jim Cline and Erica Shelley Nelson
As we indicated in another recent blog, LEOFF II personnel retain their right to sue their own employer for harm caused by employer negligence. This is one subject among many concerning Washington’s public safety personnel for which there is a significant lack of accurate information. It is in the face of that breach of knowledge that we’re releasing our upcoming “Helping the Injured or Disabled Member: A Guidebook for the Washington Law Enforcement Union Representative.” More on that book and the free training we are providing with the book’s roll-out later this year.
As to the Right to Sue, many police and firefighters in the State assume that their recovery against their employers is limited to workers compensation and they can only pursue civil remedies against third parties, many of which are judgment proof. But, in fact, when the LEOFF II law was adopted and police and firefighters were moved from the broad health coverage of LEOFF I into the Industrial Insurance Act (IIA), an exception was created in the act that allowed LEOFF II personnel to bring tort actions against their employer for the employer’s negligence. If you need help filing a lawsuit against your employer, you may hire a workers compensation attorney or personal injury attorney who handled the same type of cases before. An experienced workers compensation lawyer can help injured workers receive the compensation and benefits they are entitled to.
Generally under the IIA, employees may only sue employers when they “intentionally” cause injury. This narrow exception is hard to prove. Employers may often be negligent, but they rarely intentionally harm their employees. LEOFF II personnel, though, retain a much broader and robust right to sue based on the civil negligence standard.
Based on this exception, last week our firm filed a civil tort claim against the City of Seattle on behalf of Officer Kerry Zieger. Zieger suffered a head injury during this year’s May Day Protests. The civil tort claim notice alleges two primary theories for recovery. First, we claim that the City’s failure to provide proper head protection (he was offered a bike helmet instead of more protective gear). Second, we claim that the City and PD failed to follow riot dispersal protocols that the Department had written into policy and trained its officers on. .
This case involves just one of many situations for which an employer may be civilly liable. Injuries caused by inadequate staffing, lack of training, or improper equipment are among the bases for bringing forth a legal claim. Ultimately, an injured officer would have to prove that the agency owed them a duty of care and that it breached that duty. But when an injury arises, in many cases there can be a nexus to the employer’s negligent failures.
Starting immediately and continuing in the months ahead, we’ll be running an extensive newsletter series covering the rights you and your members have in connection with workplace injuries and disabilities. Our goal is to ensure the best possible information available to make the workplace safe and healthy for all. Effective and aggressive enforcement is the leading tool available to reach that goal.
