## Facts

- Leonard Cole worked for a public fire district, advancing from volunteer firefighter to captain, and later served as the firefighters’ union representative.
- Cole developed high blood pressure and alleged it was caused by stress and pressure imposed by the assistant fire chief.
- Cole alleged the assistant chief harassed and retaliated against him for union-related activities during negotiations and workplace interactions.
- During a period of sick leave, Cole alleged the assistant chief conducted an unfair disciplinary hearing that resulted in Cole’s demotion and later required him to return to work in entry-level dispatcher duties.
- The district’s board later reinstated Cole as captain, but Cole alleged the harassment continued and that the assistant chief sought to force him into involuntary retirement.
- Cole suffered a totally disabling stroke and, with his wife, filed a civil action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and related tort theories based on the workplace conduct and resulting injuries.
- The trial court sustained a general demurrer without leave to amend as to most claims, concluding workers’ compensation exclusivity placed them within the WCAB’s jurisdiction; the Court of Appeal largely affirmed but allowed amendment of defamation and false light claims.
- The plaintiffs sought review limited to whether the non-defamation, non-privacy tort claims (including intentional infliction of emotional distress) were barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee may bring a civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against an employer and co-employee when the alleged workplace conduct caused a compensable, totally disabling injury.
2. Whether personnel and disciplinary actions “normally occurring in the workplace,” even if alleged to be malicious or outrageous, fall within workers’ compensation exclusivity and the WCAB’s exclusive jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and similar torts are barred when based on conduct that is a normal part of the employment relationship and results in compensable industrial injury.
- The Court concluded the alleged conduct—discipline, demotion, reassignment, and retirement-related actions—was employment-related conduct normally occurring in the workplace and thus within the workers’ compensation system.
- The Court affirmed the judgment insofar as it barred the non-defamation, non-privacy causes of action under workers’ compensation exclusivity, leaving undisturbed the separate treatment of defamation and false light claims.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation provides the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment when caused by conduct that is a normal part of the employment relationship.
- Personnel-management conduct (including criticism, discipline, demotion, transfer, and similar supervisory actions) generally falls within workers’ compensation exclusivity even if alleged to have been intentional, abusive, or malicious.
- Civil tort actions may remain available where the employer’s or co-employee’s conduct exceeds the risks inherent in the employment relationship and is not a normal incident of employment (e.g., certain defamation or privacy violations, or conduct outside the compensation bargain).

## Conclusion

The court held that workplace-based emotional distress claims predicated on ordinary personnel and disciplinary actions must be pursued, if at all, through workers’ compensation, because such conduct is considered a normal incident of employment and falls within the WCAB’s exclusive jurisdiction.


Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Prot. Dist., 43 Cal. 3d 148, 729 P.2d 743 (Cal. 1987)