Case File
Without evidence of an intentional tort committed, instigated, or authorized by her employer, a New York worker couldn’t establish that the sexual assault she experienced at the hands of her supervisor for nine years dodged the state’s exclusive remedy bar.
Case
Doe v. Clark, No. 2025-03300 (N.Y. App. Div. 07/08/26)
What Happened?
A worker for a Goodyear store brought a tort an action under New York’s Adult Survivors Act to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, hostile work environment on the basis of sex, negligent retention, training, and supervision, and negligence.
The worker alleged that she was sexually abused by her supervisor for more than nine years.
The store moved to dismiss the case, arguing that New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law was the worker’s exclusive remedy.
The trial court rejected the store’s motion, prompting the store to appeal.
Rule of Law
In New York, an employee’s recovery of workers’ compensation benefits is her exclusive remedy against her employer or coworkers for injuries sustained in the course of her employment. While an intentional tort may give rise to a cause of action outside the ambit of the workers’ compensation law, the complaint must allege an intentional or deliberate act by the employer directed at causing harm to this particular employee.
What Appellate Division Said
According to Appellate Division, contrary to the worker’s contentions, the allegations did not rise to the level of an intentional tort committed, instigated, or authorized by the employer such that the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law would not apply to bar the causes of action.
As a result, Appellate Division ruled that the trial court should have granted the store’s motion to dismiss the parts of the worker’s claim related to negligent retention, training, supervision, and negligence.
Verdict: Appellate Division modified the trial court’s order to dismiss the claims barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.
Takeaway
A sexual assault by a supervisor on an employee does not rise to the level of an intentional tort committed, instigated, or authorized by an employer for purposes of New York’s exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law.
