Herrera v. Phillipps, 334 P.3d 1225

Herrera, an unauthorized alien, was injured while working for Gilligan’s LLC during a pipe “pigging” operation supervised by Phillipps; Gilligan’s initially paid some medical/wage costs but declined to file a workers’ compensation claim.
Herrera sued Gilligan’s (and later Phillipps) for negligence; defendants asserted workers’ compensation immunity under Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-102(a)(vii).
The statute defines “employee” to include aliens authorized to work and aliens the employer reasonably believes are authorized based on documentation in the employer’s possession.
Herrera argued Gilligan’s could not reasonably believe he was authorized because its I-9 was incomplete and other evidence suggested Gilligan’s knew or suspected his status.
Gilligan’s relied on its records (worker’s comp coverage listing, Herrera’s signed I-9 section, Herrera’s admissions about forged documents) to show a genuine-belief defense.
The district court granted summary judgment for Gilligan’s and Phillipps without explanation; the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, finding genuine factual disputes on both employer-immunity and co-employee liability issues.

Issue	Herrera's Argument	Gilligan's/Phillipps' Argument	Held
Whether Gilligan’s is entitled to workers’ compensation immunity under § 27-14-102(a)(vii)	Gilligan’s could not have reasonably believed Herrera was authorized to work because the I-9 was incomplete and facts show knowledge/suspicion of unauthorized status	Gilligan’s had documentation and records (I-9 with employee signature, comp coverage listing, alleged presentation of documents) sufficient to form a reasonable belief	Reversed summary judgment; genuine issue of material fact exists whether employer reasonably believed Herrera was authorized based on documentation in its possession
Whether Phillipps, as co-employee/supervisor, is immune or liable for intentional/willful-and-wanton misconduct	Herrera: evidence (policy violations, instructions to keep compressor on, ignoring warnings, long exposed pipe) supports willful/wanton misconduct exception to immunity	Phillipps: evidence is disputed and at most shows negligence (not willful/wanton) similar to cases where liability was denied	Reversed summary judgment; genuine factual dispute whether Phillipps acted with knowledge of hazard and willful/wanton disregard, precluding summary judgment

Mauch v. Stanley Structures, 641 P.2d 1247 (Wyo. 1982) (workers’ compensation exclusivity and employer immunity principles)
Meyer v. Kendig, 641 P.2d 1235 (Wyo. 1982) (rationale for employer immunity in exchange for no-fault relief)
Bertagnolli v. Louderback, 67 P.3d 627 (Wyo. 2003) (co-employee liability requires willful and wanton misconduct; factors for finding liability)
Formisano v. Gaston, 246 P.3d 286 (Wyo. 2011) (contrast: co-employee negligence short of willful/wanton insufficient for liability)
Jasper v. Brinckerhoff, 179 P.3d 857 (Wyo. 2008) (summary judgment improper where reasonable minds may differ)
Gheen v. State ex rel. Department of Health, 326 P.3d 918 (Wyo. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)