Fonseca v. Salminen
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145181
D.D.C.2012Background
- Fonseca sued Salminen and Asbestos Specialists for assault, battery, negligent supervision, and punitive damages; Salminen was Fonseca's supervisor at the worksite.
- Salminen allegedly struck Fonseca in the face at the employer's worksite on July 25, 2011.
- Asbestos Specialists removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved for summary judgment.
- Courts in DC have held that the DC Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) provides the exclusive remedy for employee injuries arising out of and during employment.
- Plaintiff asserts common law claims are not precluded by the WCA, but the court must apply WCA exclusivity to supervisor-initiated injuries.
- Judgment granted in favor of Defendants, precluding the common law claims under the WCA as the exclusive remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the WCA preclude the common law claims here? | Fonseca—WCA does not bar intentional acts by a co-employee. | Salminen/Asbestos—WCA exclusivity bars common law claims arising from employment. | Yes; WCA exclusivity precludes the common law claims. |
| Whether the assault arose out of and in the course of employment to fall within WCA coverage | Assault not within scope of employment. | Assault occurred during employment; presumed covered unless motive entirely personal. | Assault covered; no personal-motive evidence to rebut presumption. |
| Whether the complaint could be amended via plaintiff’s opposition | Opposition clarifies scope of employment. | Complaint controls; cannot amend in opposition. | Court treated Plaintiff’s allegation as within employment scope; no amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grillo v. National Bank of Washington, 540 A.2d 743 (DC 1988) (excludes employer intentional torts from WCA but allows co-employee harm within employment)
- Clark v. D.C. Dept. of Empt. Servs., 743 A.2d 722 (DC 2000) (rebuttal presumption that assault on employer premises is within WCA if motive unknown)
- Vanzant v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 557 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2008) (courts dismiss common-law claims arising from intentional co-employee torts under WCA)
- Ramey v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 468 F. Supp.2d 51 (D.D.C. 2006) (same preclusion under WCA for intentional co-employee torts)
- Tatum v. Hyatt Corp., 918 F. Supp. 5 (D.D.C. 1994) (preclusion of common-law claims under WCA for employment-related injuries)