If a worker is getting on-the-job training at a different worksite than usual, are they a “traveling employee” for workers’ compensation purposes? Only if the travel is an essential element of employment.
A traveling employee is considered to be working from the time they leave home to start work and until they get home from work, according to a Sept. 19, 2022, decision by the Illinois Fourth District Court of Appeals. They’re also typically paid for traveling expenses.
The appeals court affirmed a circuit court decision denying workers’ compensation benefits to a retail worker who claimed to be a traveling employee when she fell in a parking lot while on her way to on-the-job training at another store owned by her employer.
Assigned store still under construction
Brooke Hoots was hired as a sales associate by Dollar General in November 2017. She was told she’d be assigned to work in a store in Woodson, Illinois, but at the time she was hired that store was still under construction.
Dollar General directed Hoots to travel to another nearby store in South Jacksonville, Illinois, for mandatory on-the-job training with other sales associates who were also hired to work at the Woodson store.
Slipped, fell on black ice
On Nov. 19, 2017, Hoots drove from her home to the South Jacksonville store, parked her vehicle in a parking lot adjacent to the store and near a strip mall that also had a parking lot nearby. As she began walking to the store, she slipped on black ice and fell while carrying her purse, drink and a folder containing training materials. She landed on her left knee and leg and felt sharp pain in her left ankle.
Hoots was taken by ambulance to the hospital where a doctor recommended she undergo ankle surgery for a fracture in her left ankle. She had the surgery on Nov. 29, 2017, but continued to experience numbness and stiffness in her lower ankle. A short time later, Hoots filed a workers’ compensation claim, which Dollar General contested.
Told she could park wherever she wanted
In a hearing with an arbitrator, Hoots claimed she was permitted to park in the parking lot where the incident occurred, and that the lot was intended for use by Dollar General’s employees and customers.
Hoots testified that Dollar General provided no instruction on where to park other than that she could park wherever she wanted, including at the parking lot of the strip mall. To her knowledge, the parking lot she parked in was open to employees and customers of the surrounding businesses, which included the Dollar General store.
No evidence to support injury was work-related
On Nov. 20, 2019, the arbitrator denied the claim, finding that Hoots failed to prove her injury arose out of her employment. This was because the parking lot where Hoots fell was open equally to both the general public and Dollar General’s employees, meaning that she was at no greater risk than the general public when she fell.
The arbitrator noted that Hoots failed to:
- offer credible evidence to support that Dollar General owned or maintained the parking lot
- present evidence that she entered or exited the store more frequently than any customer did
- prove the folder she was carrying when she fell impacted her fall in any way, and
- provide credible evidence she was a traveling employee.
When it came to the traveling employee determination, the arbitrator found that Hoots failed to provide evidence on the comparative distances between both stores or that she was paid for her travel time and expenses.
Hoots appealed with the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. The commission came to the same conclusions as the arbitrator and upheld the denial of benefits, leading Hoots to appeal the decision in a circuit court on Sept. 21, 2020. The court upheld the commission’s decision.
No help with travel expenses, arrangements
On Jan. 5, 2022, Hoots filed an appeal with the Illinois Fourth District Court of Appeals.
The appeals court said that if an employee is injured on the way to, or returning from, their place of employment, the injury isn’t compensable because “the employee’s trip to and from work is the product of her own decision as to where she wants to live, which is a matter her employer ordinarily has no interest.”
However, an exception applies when the employee is “required to travel away from her employer’s premises in order to perform her job.” Hoots insisted that was the case for her since she was receiving on-the-job training at a store she wasn’t initially assigned to. She argued she was on the job as soon as she left her home to report to work since she wasn’t reporting to her own store.
“Here, there is no evidence that claimant embarked on a work-related trip,” the appeals court said. It recognized Hoots attended training at a different location away from the original worksite, but so did all of the other employees assigned to the Woodson store. There was also no evidence Dollar General reimbursed Hoots for travel expenses or assisted in making her travel arrangements.
Ultimately, the appeals court found there was no evidence to support that travel was an essential element of Hoots’ job duties, which meant she wasn’t a traveling employee and benefits had to be denied.