What Do You Think: Could Ariz. Youth Mentor Shot by Stalker Sue Employer for Unsafe Workplace?

Phoenix, AZ (WorkersCompensation.com) -- When someone an employee knows outside of work comes to the workplace and injures her, the injury is often not compensable because it’s not work-connected. In that situation, a court is likely to find that workers’ compensation is not the employee’s sole available remedy–that she can sue the employer in tort.

But what if maintaining safety is part of the worker’s job? A case involving a youth mentor in a community center run by the United Methodist Outreach Ministries is illustrative. UMOM's employee handbook directed employees that "cooperation in detecting hazards and, in turn, eliminating them, is a requirement of your employment." The employee claimed she was hired in part because of her criminal justice background.

One day, a former boyfriend of hers who was stalking her came to the facility. To protect the children at the center, she led him outside. There, he shot her several times, rendering her a paraplegic.

The youth mentor sued UMOM for failing to maintain a safe workplace. She claimed that the facility was located in a bad neighborhood and if it hadn’t been for inadequate security, she would not have been injured.

UMOM argued that the mentor’s sole remedy was workers’ compensation because her injury arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment.

Workers’ compensation is the sole remedy for a workers’ injury that arises out of and occurs in the course of employment.

In Arizona, “in the course of” employment refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the injury in relation to the employment. At the time of injury, the employee must be doing what a person so employed may reasonably do within work hours and be at a place where she may reasonably be during that time. Generally, an activity is in the course of employment when it benefits the employer.

Did the mentor’s injury occur in the course of employment?
A. Yes. She was discharging her duties in a way that benefited her employer when she was injured.
B. No. She was standing outside the building and the injury arose solely from a personal dispute.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Soto v. UMOM New Day Ctrs., No. 1 CA-CV 22-0671. Ariz. Ct. App. 12/26/23, unpublished), which held that workers’ compensation was the mentor’s sole remedy.

The court found that her injury occurred in the course of employment because:

• She was at work when the incident occurred;
• She was benefitting UMOM by protecting the children and her co-workers; and
• She was following an employment requirement by detecting and eliminating a hazard.

Referencing the employee handbook, the court stated that “[w]hen [the employee] led the shooter outside, she was following UMOM policy — identifying a hazard and eliminating it by removing the man from the building.”

The court also found that the "arising out of" element was satisfied because the employee alleged that UMOM caused her injury by providing inadequate security.

The court found that the combined weight of these elements satisfied the standard for a compensable injury. Accordingly, worker’s compensation was her exclusive remedy, and she could not sue UMOM in tort.

Share This Article: