## Facts

- Richard Archer worked for Farmer Bros. Co. for approximately 22 years and had a strong attendance record.
- While under investigation for alleged misconduct, Archer experienced a serious heart-related episode and went on authorized medical leave.
- Farmer’s vice president directed supervisors Al Henshaw and Dennie Rawson to find Archer and terminate him.
- Henshaw and Rawson went to Archer’s mother-in-law’s home while he was recovering, entered the room where he was resting in bed partially dressed, informed him he was terminated, handed him his final paycheck, and demanded keys to a company vehicle.
- Archer became severely upset, told them to leave, and later that evening attempted suicide.
- Archer sued Farmer, Henshaw, and Rawson asserting discrimination claims and a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), pleaded as “outrageous conduct.”
- The trial court dismissed the ADA and CADA claims and certain ADEA claims before jury deliberations.
- The jury found for Farmer on the remaining ADEA claim but found for Archer on outrageous conduct, awarding non-economic damages against all defendants and exemplary damages against Farmer.
- The trial court denied defendants’ directed verdict and JNOV motions on the outrageous-conduct claim and allowed exemplary damages against Farmer.

## Issues

1. Whether the Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provisions barred Archer’s IIED/outrageous-conduct claim arising from an employment termination.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit the outrageous-conduct claim to the jury and to sustain the verdict (including intent or reckless disregard and severe emotional distress).
3. Whether the evidence supported exemplary (punitive) damages against Farmer under Colorado law.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding costs to Henshaw and Rawson and denying Archer’s costs based on prevailing-party determinations.

## Decision

- The judgment was affirmed.
- The outrageous-conduct/IIED claim was not barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.
- The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find extreme and outrageous conduct and the requisite intent or recklessness; denial of directed verdict and JNOV was proper.
- The exemplary damages award against Farmer was upheld as supported by willful and wanton conduct.
- The cost awards and prevailing-party determinations were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation exclusivity does not necessarily bar a civil claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on intentional, non-accidental conduct, even when the events are employment-related.
- “Outrageous conduct” requires behavior so extreme as to exceed all bounds of decency and be intolerable in a civilized community; whether conduct meets this standard is generally a jury question when reasonable inferences support liability.
- IIED liability may rest on intent to cause severe emotional distress or reckless disregard of a substantial certainty that such distress will result.
- Exemplary damages in Colorado require proof that the injury was attended by fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct; egregious, medically reckless employment actions may satisfy this standard.
- Prevailing-party status for costs may be determined from the litigation as a whole, and a party may recover costs despite an adverse judgment on a discrete claim.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability and punitive damages for an extreme, medically reckless termination conducted in a private residence, held that workers’ compensation exclusivity did not bar the intentional tort claim, and affirmed discretionary cost allocations based on overall prevailing-party status.


Archer v. Farmer Bros. Co., 70 P.3d 495 (Colo. App. 2002)