By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
In Booth v. North Slope Borough, a federal court held that a Police Department employee could proceed with her claim that she was fired in retaliation for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as well as her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Selina Booth was employed as a Division Manager by the North Slope Borough Police Department. When a new Chief of Police was appointed in January 2015, he decided that he “did not need” a Division Manager. Shortly after, Booth was placed on investigative leave, allegedly for treating employees unfairly and for issues with the department budget. Her investigative leave was extended several times. While still on investigative leave, Booth went on FMLA medical leave due to health problems. When she returned to work, she claimed she was required to work in a storage closet and her co-workers and supervisor ignored her and prevented her from doing her job. Booth felt emotionally hurt and effected by these actions. On June 8, she was told that her position had been eliminated due to a reduction in force, and she was fired. No other employees were fired at the same time, raising questions about the questionable termination from work.
Booth claimed that her decision to take leave under the FMLA was a “negative factor” that her employer considered when making the decision to fire her. Because of this, she argued, the Police Department violated her rights under the FMLA. Booth also claimed that by repeatedly extending her investigative leave, and by treating her unfairly when she did return to work, the Department was guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Booth brought this tort law claim in addition to her other claims.
The Borough of the North Slope argued that the decision to eliminate Booth’s position was made a long time before she decided to take her FMLA leave. As a result, the decision to fire her was completely unrelated to her leave. The Borough also argued that since Booth was also bringing a claim under the Alaska Workers Compensation Act, that law provided an “exclusive” remedy for the harm she suffered. This meant that Booth couldn’t tack a tort law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on to her other claim. For these reasons, the borough argued that the Court should dismiss Booth’s lawsuit.
The Court determined that Booth’s claim could proceed to trial on her claims under the FMLA and her claims for emotional distress. Booth will need to hire a workers compensation lawyer so that they can file this claim and follow due process properly for a better chance of a positive outcome. The Court will begin by stating the clear rule that:
An employer violates the FMLA if it considers the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in an employment decision, including termination.
Booth had argued that the decision to fire her was an attempt by her employer to work around the process of terminating her for cause. As a result, the circumstances of her termination were ambiguous, and it was possible that her decision to take FMLA leave was a “negative factor.” For this reason, the court decided that the case should proceed to a jury who could examine the ambiguous facts.
The court also decided that there was no law that prevented Booth from bringing a tort claim for emotional distress along with her other claims. The court found that emotional distress was an intangible injury that was not covered by the Alaska Worker’s Compensation Act. According to the Court, the law in Alaska:
Joined the courts of many other states which have held that the exclusive remedy provisions of their workers compensation law do not bar intangible injury claims…
Like many other states, the law in Alaska allows for recovery for emotional injuries in addition to the actual injuries (like lost wages) that result from an employer’s misconduct. As a result, Selina Booth could proceed to trial with the help of a workers compensation lawyer fighting alongside her with claims against the Police Department that eliminated her job. A workers compensation lawyer will ensure that injured employees will seek the compensation and benefits they are entitled to.
This case illustrates the how common law claims, workers compensation claims, and statutory claims intersect in the employment setting. Under the common law, all persons have a right to claim compensation when a person wrongfully inflicts emotional distress upon them. Here Booth claimed that her employer deliberately delayed her investigation to cause her harm. This is just the sort of intangible injury that common law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is designed to compensate for. Worker’s compensation systems, including Alaska’s, are based on the idea of compensating persons for “tangible” injuries which occur in the workplace. In exchange for giving employees compensation on a no-fault basis, workers compensation legislation takes away the right of employees to sue for workplace injuries.
In the present case, the employer tried to argue that the bar against suits against employers means that employees cannot sue an employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court in this case rejected that argument by pointing out that the Alaska’s workers compensation statute (like most, including Washington State’s) does not allow for compensation for intangible emotional injury, so there is no danger of double recovery, which is the reason for the bar against suits against the employer. The Court could have gone further and pointed out that if it agreed with the employer, then logically, no employee could ever recover for emotional damage inflicted by an employer. This would allow employers to inflict emotional harm on employees without consequence, something that is contrary to our system of civil justice.
Employees can recover for emotional distress for damages for some violations of statutes, including some anti-discrimination statutes and the anti-retaliation provision of the FMLA statute. Sometimes, these emotional harms can overlap with an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. In that case, juries may be asked to distinguish between the damages for each type of claim.
**Please visit our Premium Website, for more information on Layoffs and FMLA.
