The Exclusive Remedy Provision and “Purely Personal” Workplace Fights

May 2024

Emma L. Knowles

In Price v. Lunan Roberts Inc., Arby’s Restaurant Group, et al, the Illinois Appellate Court opined on the application of the “Exclusive Remedy” provision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act when an injury or death in the workplace stems from a fight. There is a general exception to the “Exclusive Remedy” provision, allowing Plaintiffs to file civil claims against employers, if the fight stemmed from a “purely personal” issue, although the basis for imposing liability on the employer under such circumstances would remain weak. Here, however, the Court clarified the rule and held that any evidence of whether an issue is “purely personal” cannot be speculative.

This case stems from a murder that occurred at an Arby’s fast-food restaurant in Hickory Hills, IL. Decedent John Price was working as an employee at the Arby’s restaurant, when he was stabbed and killed by a co-worker, Irvin Thomas. The stabbing, in which Thomas stabbed Irwin approximately twenty-seven times, occurred shortly after Thomas began his evening shift. A surveillance recording served as evidence of the stabbing, but had no sound, so it was unknown what the two men said to each other leading up to the murder. The murder investigation showed that the two men had some type of association outside the workplace, but the exact nature and depth of the relationship was unclear.

Price’s mother Doreen Price (“Plaintiff”), executor of her son’s estate, filed a civil lawsuit against the owners and operators of the restaurant (“Lunan defendants”), the Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., and Thomas. Price alleged the Lunan defendants were negligent in the hiring, retention, and supervision of their employees, and that such negligence caused the death of her son. Plaintiff argued that the restaurant knew about past incidents between the two men and kept him on as an employee anyway.

The Workers’ Compensation Act generally serves as the exclusive remedy for a person who is injured during the course of employment. The Lunan defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ms. Price could only recover for her son’s death by way of claims under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. They argued there was no evidence of a personal relationship between the two men. However, when the injury results from a personal conflict between employees unrelated to their work, it is possible that the Workers’ Compensation Act might not bar a civil suit by the employee seeking redress for the injury. Price, 2023 IL App (1st) 220742, at ¶ 10, citing from Meebrey v. Marshall Field * Co., 139 Ill. 2d 455, 463 (1990).

The Lunan defendants filed a motion for summary judgment here, and “provided evidence that Price was injured during the course of his employment and that his injury was otherwise compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act.” Plaintiff argued that the nature of the men’s association outside of the workplace was such that the conflict was unrelated to their work, therefore her remedy should not be limited to the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Lunan defendants argued that any evidence brought by Plaintiff that the fight between Price and Thomas was purely personal, and not connected to the work, was speculative in nature, and as such it could not overcome the Lunan defendants’ summary judgment motion. See Id. The case lays out the existing rules related to this question:

“Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the phrase “arising out of the employment” refers to the causal connection between employment and the injury suffered. Rodriguez v. Frankie's Beef/Pasta & Catering, 2012 IL App (1st) 113155, ¶ 21. An injury arises from employment when a causal connection exists between working conditions and the resulting injury. Id.

Fights between employees arising out of disputes concerning the employer's work are risks incidental to the employment, and resulting injuries are compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act, which bars recovery in civil suits against the employer. Franklin v. Industrial Comm'n, 211 Ill. 2d 272, 279-80 (2004). However, where a physical confrontation between two employees is purely personal in nature, the resulting injuries cannot be said to have arisen out of the employment. Martinez v. Gutmann Leather, LLC, 372 Ill. App. 3d 99, 102 (2007) (citing Castaneda v. Industrial Comm'n, 97 Ill. 2d 338, 342 (1983)).”

Thus, Plaintiff had to show that the fight leading to the murder was personal and not connected to their work at Arby’s. To that end, Plaintiff pointed “to the facts that (1) Price and Thomas spent time together outside work when Price would drive Thomas home, (2) a mutual interest in videogames that included Price giving Thomas a portable game console, (3) some kind of transactions being conducted with another party as evidenced by the text message evidence.” Id., ¶ 23. Ms. Price drew several inferences from those facts which she claimed showed “a relationship of some depth.” ¶ 24.

In affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Lunan defendants, dismissing Plaintiff’s civil claims, the appellate court held that the inferences drawn from the facts listed above were all purely speculative, and pointed out that “speculation is insufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment.”

Critically, the court stated that “[t]he fact Price and Thomas had some degree of a personal relationship does not mean that the incident was caused by a purely personal dispute.” Plaintiff supplied no evidence that the dispute was unrelated to the workplace.

The lesson of Price is clear - a personal relationship between the parties does not necessarily mean that a court will classify a workplace incident between those parties as a “purely personal” dispute. When rebutting the argument that a workplace altercation was the result of a purely personal issue, a Plaintiff must bring clear, non-speculative evidence to that effect. Defense of employers where this issue is raised should focus on development of a detailed factual record of the relationship between the parties and the nature of the dispute.