Ham v. Tjx Companies, Inc.
264 F. Supp. 3d 198
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Shalaura Ham, a TJ Maxx employee, alleges supervisor Teresa Memine verbally abused and then physically assaulted her at work during a team meeting.
- Ham pleaded common-law claims of battery, negligent supervision, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Memine and employer TJX Companies, Inc.
- TJX moved to dismiss, arguing the District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) provides the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries arising out of and in the course of employment.
- Ham argued the assault arose from Memine’s personal animus, not from employment, and invoked the "specific intent" exception to WCA exclusivity.
- Court found the alleged assault occurred at work and stemmed from a workplace quarrel, bringing the claims within the WCA’s scope.
- Court rejected the specific-intent exception because plaintiff alleged only a post‑incident HR investigation by TJX, not employer participation or conspiracy in the assault; dismissed TJX without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCA is the exclusive remedy for Ham’s workplace assault claims | Ham: Assault stemmed from supervisor’s personal animus and not employment-related, so WCA does not apply | TJX: Injuries from workplace assault arise out of and in the course of employment, so WCA is exclusive remedy | Court: WCA is exclusive; allegations show assault arose from workplace quarrel and occurred during work |
| Whether an assault by a supervisor falls within WCA’s definition of "injury" | Ham: Risk of assault not a condition of employment; personal motive removes it from WCA | TJX: WCA includes injuries caused by willful acts of others directed at employee because of employment | Court: WCA covers intentional torts by coworkers/supervisors occurring at workplace; claims are WCA-governed |
| Whether the "specific intent" exception to WCA applies | Ham: Employer knew and therefore intended the injury (invokes exception) | TJX: Exception requires employer specific intent—i.e., employer participation or conspiracy | Court: Exception inapplicable; mere post‑incident investigation by HR is insufficient to show employer intent or participation |
| Whether plaintiff stated plausible non‑WCA claim to avoid dismissal | Ham: Complaints of insults, threats, and alleged animus show non-employment origin | TJX: Allegations place insult, threat, and assault within workplace context | Court: Complaints show events arose from employment; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Vanzant v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 557 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C.) (WCA exclusive remedy for supervisor assault during workplace meeting)
- Fonseca v. Salminen, 896 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C.) (intentional workplace assault by supervisor falls under WCA)
- Tatum v. Hyatt Corporation, 918 F. Supp. 5 (D.D.C.) (WCA exclusive remedy for workplace sexual assault)
- Lockhart v. Coastal Int’l Sec., Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C.) (WCA reaches intentional torts at workplace by employees/third parties)
- Grillo v. Nat’l Bank of Washington, 540 A.2d 743 (D.C. 1988) (specific‑intent exception applies only when employer conspired or participated in intentional harm)
- Harrington v. Moss, 407 A.2d 658 (D.C. 1979) (assault may arise out of employment if quarrel has origin in work)
- Doe v. United States, 797 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C.) (narrow reading of specific‑intent exception; employer knowledge short of participation does not remove exclusivity)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requires plausible claim of employer involvement to survive dismissal)