http://news.trust.org/item/20211221215112-7t49x
The impact on companies could be huge
8 replies (most recent on top)
A request for those who post links. Please also post the article. Sometimes readers can't access the link. This is not the case in this instance, as a reader, I can access the article. But there are many that the access does not exist. By the way, here is the article.
Dec 21 (Reuters) - A California candymaker must face a lawsuit by an employee who says she caught COVID-19 at work and gave it to her husband, resulting in his death, a state appeals court held on Tuesday, upholding what appeared to be the first ruling allowing a worker's lawsuit against an employer over a family member's COVID death.
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, rejected South San Francisco-based See's Candies' argument that the employee, Matilde Ek, must file for workers' compensation rather than seek damages in court because her husband's death was "derivative" of her own workplace injury.
A lawyer for the Berkshire Hathaway Inc-owned company had no immediate comment.
A lawyer for Ek could not immediately be reached for comment. Nor could the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which had weighed in with a legal brief supporting See's.
Ek and her three daughters sued See's last year, saying she contracted COVID-19 because the company failed to ensure safety in the workplace. Her husband, Arturo Ek, then got the disease from her while she was convalescing at home, and eventually died from it, she said.
See's responded that Arturo Ek's death was "derivative" of Ek's alleged workplace injury. That meant it was covered by workers' compensation, and Ek could not sue over it in court, the company said.
A trial court nonetheless allowed the case to go forward. See's argued on appeal that the decision was an "outlier" and that other courts that had considered similar COVID 19-related cases had rejected them.
The Court of Appeal, however, said Arturo Ek's death was not derivative of his wife becoming sick, but was instead caused directly by the COVID-19 virus, for which his wife served as a "conduit." It cited a decision by a federal appeals court allowing a similar case over a hepatitis infection. (Reporting by Brendan Pierson in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis)
the company being sued isn't denying that she got infected at work, nor are they arguing that her husband could have contracted it elsewhere - they're just arguing that it's a derivative workmans comp claim and their insurance should be liable instead of the company.
i thought Dallas was going to be the new headquarters?
Not sure how they can prove they caught it at work, let’s see how it turns out.
Please god let the win this case!
It may be, or it may not. They've allowed the suit to take place, they haven't ruled on it one way or another. It will be something to follow. My guess is, the employee will lose this case, simply because very infectious diseases often can't be prevented from spreading no matter how much care an employer takes and there's always the possibility that the disease could have been caught elsewhere. Sure, contact tracing might suggest that work was most likely, but this person could have got it elsewhere unless they live in a bubble 24/7 when not at work.
Maybe now they will allow WFM exemptions for those of us with immune compromised family members.
Take note, Chuckie! (Although you’ve been told this by the employees you won’t listen to for ages now.) Last I checked our true headquarters is still in California.