The Decorating Debacle: Illinois Court Examines Recreational Activity Exemptions in Workers' Compensation Claim

November 2024

Kelly M. Wiggins

Is an employee’s decision to decorate her supervisor's office for her birthday considered a recreational activity under Section 11 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, thus barring recovery after sustaining an injury? The Illinois Appellate Court recently provided some insight into this question in Helping Hands Center v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, a decision issued under Rule 23 (¹). According to Section 11 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/11 (West 2016)), accidental injuries incurred while participating in voluntary recreational programs – including but not limited to athletic events, parties, and picnics – do not arise out of and in the course of the employment even though the employer pays some or all the cost thereof. Conversely, the exclusion in section 11 does not apply “in the event that the injured employee was ordered or assigned by his employer to participate in the program.” In Helping Hands, the employee decided, on her own and with no direction from anyone, to decorate her supervisor’s office for her birthday when she lost her balance, fell from a desk, and sustained injuries to her right foot and right side of body. Following a hearing, the Arbitrator found that the employee’s injuries arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment, and that the employee’s current condition of ill-being was causally related to the alleged work accident. The Arbitrator reasoned that the employee was not engaged in a “party” or “recreational program” at the time of the injury and thus was not barred by Section 11 of the Act. A majority of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the Arbitrator with the Circuit Court of Cook County affirming.

The oral arguments indicate the Court questioned the employer on whether it was intending to expand recreational activities to include decorating for a special occasion, despite the fact no official party or gathering was planned. The employer argued the employee’s official job duties of a Medical Assistant did not involve decorating offices for special occasions, and the act of decorating itself is an act of celebration contemplated by Section 11 of the Act. The employer further argued the employee admitted her decision to decorate her supervisor’s office was voluntary and not ordered by her employer.

Despite those arguments, the Appellate Court found that Section 11 did not bar recovery and the Commission’s finding the accident arose out of and in the course of petitioner’s employment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court focused on testimony of the employee that she had decorated many co-workers’ offices for special occasions in the past, including just a week prior when her supervisor instructed her to purchase decorations (balloons, streamers, etc.) and decorate the office for a nurse who was leaving the employer’s employ. The Court reasoned that while the activity was voluntary, it did not fall under the definition of a “recreational program” (such as parties or athletic events) that would bar compensation. More importantly, the Court noted that the act of decorating the office was part of a routine practice at work, even though it was not mandatory, and thus was considered connected to the employee’s work duties.

The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of evaluating whether an activity is inherently connected to an employee’s job duties when determining compensability, rather than strictly labeling it as voluntary or recreational. The decision is significant for employers, as it reinforces that even voluntary activities at work may lead to compensable injuries if they are deemed related to an employee’s normal job functions, even if they are significantly separate from an employee’s official job duties.

While this case is not precedential, Illinois employers should assess their employees’ “official” job duties one would find on a Job Description as well as any “routine practices” said employees may also engage in as part of their employment. Employers should be cognizant that even if an employee is injured doing something not a part of his or her official job duties, the court will analyze past routine practices at the employer through witness testimony in determining compensability under the Act.

Footnotes:

^{1. The Illinois Supreme Court amended Rule 23, which originally allowed Illinois reviewing courts to issue decisions as unpublished orders if the ruling did not establish law (was not precedential). This amendment now permits unpublished orders, issued on or after January 1, 2021, to be cited for persuasive purposes. ↩}