## Facts

- Female employees sued their employer alleging workplace sexual harassment by male co-workers during work hours.
- The employees alleged repeated unwanted sexual touching and verbal sexual advances, causing emotional distress.
- The complaint asserted tort claims including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and retention.
- The employer argued the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for any work-related injury.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint based on workers’ compensation exclusivity, and the district court affirmed while certifying a question to the state supreme court.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s workers’ compensation exclusivity provision bars tort claims against an employer based on sexual harassment occurring in the workplace.
2. Whether harms stemming from sexual harassment constitute the type of “injury” covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act such that other employer liability is eliminated.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative.
- The court held that workers’ compensation does not provide the exclusive remedy for claims based on workplace sexual harassment.
- The court quashed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, permitting the tort claims to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation exclusivity applies only to liability “on account of” statutory “injury or death”; it does not eliminate other liability grounded in conduct outside that scope.
- Sexual harassment is not treated as a risk inherent in employment for purposes of workers’ compensation coverage and exclusivity.
- Workers’ compensation is directed primarily at economic loss from accidental workplace harms; sexual harassment primarily implicates violations of personal rights and dignity.
- Strong public policy against workplace sexual harassment, reflected in state and federal anti-discrimination law, counsels against interpreting workers’ compensation exclusivity to preclude tort remedies for harassment-related misconduct.
- Employers have responsibility to maintain a workplace free from sexual harassment; insulating employers from tort liability through workers’ compensation exclusivity would undercut deterrence and remedial goals.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court held that the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision does not bar employees’ tort claims against an employer arising from workplace sexual harassment, and it reinstated the action for litigation on the merits.


Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Sec., Inc., 552 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1989)