Mary Jo. Fortin v. AT&T Services Inc., 21-11047

Fortin began working as a reports clerk in AT&T’s Alpharetta, GA office in 2017; Pearl Bailey was a co-worker who complained about Fortin’s job performance.
Several months after starting, while both were at work and during work hours, Bailey allegedly shoved/elbowed Fortin while Fortin walked down an office aisle; no other witnesses.
Fortin sued AT&T for negligent hiring and retention and vicarious liability based on Bailey’s assault; she sought tort damages for her injuries.
AT&T moved for summary judgment, arguing the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment and thus are covered by the Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act, which provides the employee’s exclusive remedy.
The district court granted summary judgment for AT&T, finding the assault was work-related and barred by the Act’s exclusive-remedy provision; Fortin appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Georgia’s Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision bars Fortin’s tort claims arising from a co-worker assault	Fortin: Bailey acted from personal animosity unrelated to work, so the personal-motive exception applies and tort claims are not barred	AT&T: The assault arose out of and in the course of employment (work-related performance dispute), so the Act’s exclusive remedy precludes tort claims	Court: Affirmed—injuries arose both out of and in the course of employment; exclusive remedy applies; summary judgment for AT&T upheld

Amy v. Carnival Corp., 961 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2020) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2014) (nonmovant must present more than speculation or a mere scintilla to avoid summary judgment)
Whitehead v. BBVA Compass Bank, 979 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2020) (nonmovant must introduce evidence creating a genuine dispute about motive)
Webster v. Dodson, 522 S.E.2d 487 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (personal-motive exception to Workers’ Comp exclusive remedy for co-worker intentional torts)
Hennly v. Richardson, 444 S.E.2d 317 (Ga. 1994) (defines “arose out of” and “in the course of” employment elements)
Potts v. UAP–Ga. Ag. Chem., Inc., 506 S.E.2d 101 (Ga. 1998) (both “out of” and “in the course of” elements must be satisfied)
Baldwin v. Roberts, 442 S.E.2d 272 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) (intentional co-worker torts arise out of employment unless motivated by personal animosity)
Wall v. Phillips, 436 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (conduct violating company policy can still be covered if dispute is work-related)