What is Pennsylvania’s ‘Personal Animus’ Exception?  

Do You Know The Rule?

The general rule in Pennsylvania is that an employee cannot sue his employer for personal injury arising from his employment. 

Pennsylvania’s “personal animus” exception makes it possible to sue for personal injury under certain circumstances. Per the exception, an employee’s injury in the workplace is not compensable under the WCA if it is the result of someone else’s personal hostility toward the employee.  

The exception sometimes comes up in cases where an employee is murdered and the employee’s spouse or estate seeks death benefits under the WCA. It’s more likely arise, however, with respect to assaults at work that end in injury but not death. The workers’ compensation carrier might defend itself against the claim by arguing that the attack was merely a personal dispute between the two employees, or personal hostility on the part of the attacker.  

General Rules 

The exception applies if: 

1. A coworker attacked the employee in the workplace 

2. The assailant intended to inflict the injury for personal reasons  

3. The assailant’s motivation was unrelated to employment 

Thus, if the employee was merely an innocent victim of the attack, the above requirements are not met. In that case, the attack generally would be considered an unexpected happening that arose in the course of employment and that is covered by the WCA. 

Source of the Exception 

The exception arises from the WCA’s definition of injury arising in the course of employment, which states that the term does not include an injury caused by an act of a third person intended to injure the worker because of reasons personal to him and not directed against him as an employee or because of his employment. 

Burden to Establish that the Exception Applies 

Courts assume an injury is work-related if it occurred while the employee was working. The party seeking to establish that the exception applies has the burden of including facts in their pleadings showing that the attack was motivated by personal animosity unrelated to employment. 

Note that the party arguing that the exception applies may be the employer, carrier, or employee. The employee, for example, may want to establish the exception to overcome the general rule that the WCA is his sole remedy for work-related injuries. If he can show the WCA does not apply, he’s free to bring a negligence or other tort lawsuit against the employer—a potentially far more expensive proposition for the employer. 

Potential Evidence 

When asserting the exception, it’s important to look for any indications of hostility on the part of the attacker that pre-existed the incident. Parties claiming the exception applies may need to seek statements from coworkers of the two employees, especially those who witnessed the incident or were familiar with how the two got along at work. A police report and any law enforcement records addressing intent are likely to prove helpful, as are statements from the spouses of both individuals. 

Case Examples 

Grabowski v. Carelink Cmty. Support Servs., 465 A.2d 19 (PA 2020) (holding that the personal animus exception didn’t apply where the employee, who was attacked by a resident of the employer’s facility, failed to allege any motivation for the attack in the pleadings). 

Scantlin v. Ulrich, 465 A.2d 19 (Pa. Super. 1983) (holding that the employee failed to establish the personal animus exception applied where he asserted an intentional injury caused by his co-worker but did not state that the co-worker's action was driven by personal animosity toward the employee). 

Share This Article: