Employee Not Entitled To Workers’ Comp For Psychological Injuries Caused By Coworkers’ Reaction To Her Own Inappropriate Conduct
The question presented in this workers' compensation proceeding was whether the disdainful reactions of a supervisor and co-workers to an employee's mistreatment of them constitute “actual events of employment” for which the employee can obtain worker's compensation benefits for the psychological stress that the employee experiences because of those disdainful reactions to her inappropriate conduct.
The answer required a California appellate court to interpret the California Labor Code, which states: “In order to establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee shall demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury.”
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the WCAB) concluded that Rosemary Verga was not entitled to compensation for psychiatric injury while employed by United Airlines. According to Verga, her psychiatric injury was the result of harassment and persecution by her supervisor and co-workers. However, the WCAB found “the true fact remains that Verga was not actually subject to harassment or persecution, she instead brought upon herself the disdain of her co-workers” because Verga was “a difficult person to get along with”; she was impolite, unpleasant, and co-workers “never knew when she might get upset.” The WCAB held: “That disdain is not an actual event of employment” within the meaning of the statute.
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the WCAB order. The court explained that substantial evidence supported the WCAB's factual findings that Verga's supervisor and co-workers did not persecute or harass her; instead, it was Verga who caused the stressful work environment by being rude, inflexible, easily upset, and demeaning toward other employees. That Verga subjectively misperceived as harassment the disdainful reaction of her co-workers to Verga's mistreatment of them did not entitle her to worker's compensation benefits for psychiatric injury. Rather, the evidence established that Verga was the predominant cause of her psychiatric injury because her inappropriate conduct toward co-workers created their disdain toward her.
Although the workers' compensation system generally provides benefits regardless of the fault of any party, there are limits when an employee intentionally causes his or her own injury. To allow an employee to harass co-workers and, when they respond unfavorably, to claim a stress-related injury to the employee's psyche would increase, not reduce, workers' compensation claims and create the potential for abuse of the system. In sum, the disdainful reactions of co-workers to Verga's abusive conduct toward them were neither “actual events of employment” nor the “predominant” cause of Verga's psychiatric injury within the meaning of the statute. The predominant cause of her injury was Verga herself, through her intentional abuse of her co-workers. Thus, she was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits.
Verga v. WCAB