 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nassa v. Hook-SupeRx2/15/2002
caused by the employer's alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 667-70. Later, relying on the Cianci decision, that same District Court interpreted this holding as one that was capable of being "distilled to the simple proposition that the WCA provides the exclusive remedy for claims against employers by employees who have suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress in the workplace." Iacampo v. Hasbro, Inc., 929 F. Supp. 562, 582 (D.R.I. 1996).
But when employees have joined claims for work-related intentional infliction of mental distress with those alleging defamation, other courts have drawn a key distinction between these two causes of action: they have held that the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress are subject to the applicable exclusive-remedy statute for workers' compensation, but they have allowed the defamation claims to proceed in court because the latter seek compensation for injuries that are not covered by workers' compensation benefits. See, e.g., Battista v. Chrysler Corp., 454 A.2d 286 (Del. Super. Ct. 1982); Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 413 N.E.2d 711 (Mass. 1980); Mounteer v. Utah Power & Light Co., 823 P.2d 1055 (Utah 1991).
Recently, we have had occasion to recognize that certain work-related "intangible injuries which rob a person of dignity and self-esteem" do not fall within the WCA's exclusive-remedy provision. See Folan v. State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, 723 A.2d 287 (R.I. 1999). In Folan, we ruled that there are certain types of injuries, such as workplace discrimination, for which the WCA does not provide compensation because the injury is unrelated to the capacity or incapacity of the employee to perform employment-related duties. Id. at 292. Defamation, we hold, is another such injury: it "robs" employees of their good name and standing in the community by, for example, adversely affecting their fitness for the proper conduct of their lawful business without necessarily affecting their physical or mental capacity for work. Thus, a defamed employee may possess the physical and mental capacity to work, yet still maintain a common-law defamation claim for his or her injured reputation. Here, as in Folan, the WCA was not enacted to redress such "'intangible injuries'" to reputation, nor would it "'serve as a deterrent'" in that regard. Id. at 291.
In this case, defendants' alleged statements disparaged Nassa's reputation for honesty in his business dealings by suggesting that property owners had bribed him so that he would cause his employer, Hook, to enter into leases with them. If false, such statements would be "slander per se" because " ne who publishes a slander that ascribes to another conduct * * * that would adversely affect his fitness for the proper conduct of his lawful business * * * is subject to liability without proof of special harm." Restatement (Second) Torts ยง 573 at 191-92 (1977). For slander per se, a plaintiff can establish liability without a showing of special or pecuniary damages because those damages are presumed. See Henry v. Cherry & Webb, 30 R.I. 13, 73 A. 97 (1909). Thus, in awarding compensatory damages for such falsehoods, a jury could compensate Nassa for the presumed impairment to his reputation and standing in the community -- as well as for "the mental anguish and humiliation experienced as a result of the defamatory statements," Bosler v. Sugarman, 440 A.2d 129, 132 (R.I. 1982) -- without Nassa having to prove any resultant earnings incapacity.
In sum, certain intangible injuries -- such as damage to an employee's reputation or community standing -- do not fall within the WCA's purview and no WCA remedy is available to compensate s
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|