Did Comment about Coworker’s Mother Make Ensuing Fight Purely Personal?

What Do You Think?

An employer can sometimes avoid a negligence lawsuit by demonstrating that the workers’ compensation act applies to the injury, making those benefits the employee’s sole available remedy. 

One case, in addition to showing why during a workplace argument you should never mention someone’s mother, highlights how employers and attorneys can prepare when seeking dismissal of a case based on the exclusivity provision.

The Amazon employee in that case asserted that he was continually harassed by a coworker. When that coworker reportedly mentioned the employee’s mother, the employee told him to say it again, leading the coworker to attack and injure him. The employee claimed that the dispute arose from his employment with Amazon and occurred in the scope of his employment. 

The employee sued Amazon for negligent hiring and supervision. Amazon asserted that the exclusivity provision of the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act barred the case. That provision generally makes workers’ compensation the sole remedy for employees whose injuries arise out of the work and occur in the course of employment.

When considering whether an assault on an employee arises out of employment, courts divide the assaults into three categories:

1. Assaults with an "inherent connection" to employment such as disputes over performance, pay or termination;
2. Assaults stemming from "inherently private" disputes imported into the employment setting from the claimant's domestic or private life and not exacerbated by the employment; and 
3. Assaults resulting from a "neutral force" such as random assaults on employees by individuals outside the employment relationship.

A purely private dispute does not arise out of work and thus is not subject to the exclusivity provision.

Did the exclusivity provision bar the employee’s negligence lawsuit?

A. Yes. The attack was purely personal.

B. No. There was no evidence about what fueled the attack.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Bernard v. Amazon.com Services, LLC., No. 3:23-cv-01341 (M.D. Tenn. 03/05/25), which refused to grant Amazon’s request to dismiss the lawsuit.

To determine which category of assault occurred, the court observed, it had to examine what spurred the assault. For example, did it arise from a work-related task, or was a purely personal dispute?

In this case, the complaint was silent on what spurred the assault. The court was unswayed by the employee’s broad claims that the dispute arose from his employment with Amazon and occurred in the scope of his employment. 

“[The employee’s] substantive allegations describing [the coworker’s] harassment offer no factual allegations exploring ‘why’ or ‘what’ sparked [the coworker’s] behavior,” the court wrote. 

While the coworker allegedly made an incoherent comment about the employee’s mother, neither party provided any facts tying the dispute to some workplace issue, or any facts to show it was provoked by a personal feud. 

“While [the employee] argues that reference to his mother means it was personal, that is a thin reed to support that conclusion,” the court wrote.

Without sufficient factual allegations concerning what fueled the assault, the court refused to dismiss the case.

Share This Article: