State Snapshot
BASIC RULE
In Rhode Island, workers’ compensation is an employee’s exclusive legal remedy for work-related injuries. R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-29-20.
This means that an injured employee cannot sue his employer in tort for monetary damages, such as by bringing a negligence claim or claim for premises liability. The injured employee’s family members also cannot sue based on the employee’s claim, such as by bringing a wrongful death action or loss of consortium lawsuit.
CO-EMPLOYEES
Rhode Island generally extends the exclusivity rule to co-employees. So, in most cases, an injured worker cannot sue a co-employee in tort.
TYPES OF INJURIES COVERED BY RULE
The exclusivity rule covers:
- Physical injuries
- Occupational diseases
- Mental injuries
The rule does not apply to injuries that are not covered by the worker’s compensation act. For example, it does not apply to reputational injuries or pure workplace discrimination. Thus, an employee may sue an employer for defamation or age discrimination.
INTENTIONAL INJURIES
In contrast to most states, Rhode Island has not adopted a broad intentional injury exception that would allow an employee to sue in tort if the employer deliberately injures her. Even if an employer (or co-employee) acts with willful, reckless, or intentional misconduct that leads to an injury, the civil suit is still barred.
EMPLOYEE OPTS OUT
In Rhode Island, an employee may preserve common-law rights by giving the employer written notice at the time of hire that the employee is reserving the right to pursue tort remedies. The worker must complete and submit an official waiver form to the Rhode Island Department of Labor, with a copy provided to the employer. R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-29-17.
THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS
The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to lawsuits against third parties. For example, if the employee is struck by a car driven by a member of the public while the employee is on the clock, the rule does not bar the lawsuit against the driver. To take another example, if an employee is injured during work by defective equipment that is manufactured by another company, the employee may still sue that other company.
EMPLOYER FAILS TO SECURE COVERAGE
If an employer fails to maintain the mandatory workers’ compensation insurance required by law, they forfeit their tort immunity. The injured worker can file a civil suit against them, and the employer is stripped of traditional common-law defenses (such as assumption of risk or contributory negligence).
TYPES OF EMPLOYEES NOT COVERED
Certain employees are not covered by worker’s compensation and thus may sue in tort regardless of the type of injury involved. This includes:
- True independent contractors
- Sole proprietors who opted out
- Certain domestic/agricultural workers
RECENT CASES
Cugini v. Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, No. WC-2008-0722 (R.I. Super. Ct. 04/08/20)
A longtime University of Rhode Island employee transferred into the Alumni Relations Office. She claimed her supervisor treated her unfairly because of her age. The employee was in her 50’s, while most of the other employees were younger. She alleged that after starting the new role she received excessive criticism, inadequate training, negative evaluations, and discipline designed to force her out. She sued her supervisor for interference with prospective economic relations. The court rejected the supervisor’s argument that the exclusive remedy provision barred the employee’s tort claim for interference with prospective economic relations. The court concluded that interference with prospective economic relations seeks recovery for economic and reputational-type harms—not physical workplace injury. The court held that the Workers’ Compensation Act did not bar the claim. It thus refused to dismiss the case against the supervisor.
What are the exclusive remedy rules in your state? Find out on Simply Research.
Mello. v. Killeavy, 205 A.3d 54 (R.I. 04/23/18)
The employee worked at a groundskeeping and cemetery maintenance company. While he was in a restroom stall at work, his coworker tried to play a prank on him. He poured gasoline onto the bathroom floor, and ignited it—intending only to make a loud “popping” noise to scare him. The gasoline flowed into the stall and burst into flames, seriously injuring the employee. The injured employee obtained workers’ compensation benefits from the employer. He then filed a negligence claim against his co-worker, who sought dismissal based on the exclusive remedy provision. In turn, the injured employee argued that because his co-worker was acting outside the scope of his employment by lighting gasoline on fire, he should be treated as an unprotected third party. The court pointed out that under Rhode Island law, the exclusivity provision explicitly extends immunity to co-employees. Further, by applying for and accepting workers’ compensation benefits, the injured employee admitted that he was hurt during the course of employment. Finally, Rhode Island’s statutory scheme does not contain an exception allowing an employee to sue a coworker for negligent conduct just because that coworker was engaging in a prank or acting outside their precise job duties at the time. The court affirmed the lower court’s ruling in favor of the co-employee.
EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEARBY STATES
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New York
