Employers in California won’t have to worry quite as much about being sued over their employees’ family members getting sick from “take-home” COVID-19 thanks to a decision from the state’s Supreme Court.
The court determined in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks that the company was not liable for an employee’s wife’s hospitalization from COVID-19, which the wife claimed her husband brought home from work.
This case was initially removed from state court to federal court, according to law firm Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo, with a federal district court dismissing the wife’s lawsuit because:
- her claims based on contact with her husband were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA)
- her claims based on indirect contact with infected surfaces failed as a plausible claim, and
- the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace didn’t extend to non-employees who contracted a virus away from the jobsite.
On appeal with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court certified two questions to be decided by the California Supreme Court, leading to the recent decision on July 6, 2023.
Does WCA bar spouse’s negligence claim against employer?
The first question the California Supreme Court had to answer was, “If an employee contracts COVID-19 at the workplace and brings the virus home to a spouse, does the California Workers’ Compensation Act bar the spouse’s negligence claim against the employer?”
The court answered no to this question. Why? Because it said the “exclusivity provisions of the WCA do not bar a non-employee’s recovery for injuries that are not legally dependent upon an injury suffered by the employee.”
That answer is consistent with a decision in See’s Candies v. Superior Court which involved a wife who brought COVID-19 home to her husband, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo state. The husband eventually died from the illness. In that case, an appeals court didn’t dismiss the wife’s wrongful death claim as being barred by the WCA.
Do employers owe duty of care to household members?
Question two was, “Does an employer owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members?”
The answer: No such duty exists “because recognizing such a duty would impose an intolerable burden on employers and society in contravention of public policy.” In short, if employers had such a duty, the amount of lawsuits that could create would overburden the court system, which isn’t “in society’s best interest.”
Further, since there were multiple ways an employee could be exposed to COVID-19 outside of work, tracing the source would be practically impossible.
Decision offers some guidance to employers
The sole remedy for an employee who contracts COVID-19 at work is workers’ compensation. However, that’s not true for family members who are then exposed by the employee. In that case, the family member might have an independent cause of action, depending on the circumstances.
If an employee dies from the infection contracted at work and a family member files a survivor action, that family member will be treated as if they were stepping into the employee’s shoes. A wrongful death claim such as this will not be barred by the WCA, according to Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo.
This offers some clarification, but unfortunately still leaves more questions that the legal system will still have to work out over time.
