## Facts

- Leonard Eserhut worked as a design engineer for Utility Vault Company from 1979 until he resigned in October 1983.
- Eserhut worked on standard engineering projects with three coworkers: Steve Heister and Tom Weist (design engineers in the same office) and Gary Venn (a salesman seated elsewhere).
- In 1982, Eserhut was assigned to a special project with company management. During that period, Eserhut made remarks about the coworkers in “unfortunate language,” and the coworkers became jealous of his closer work with management.
- When the special project ended in January 1983 and Eserhut returned to working with the coworkers, friction increased due to personality conflicts, Eserhut’s prior comments, and the coworkers’ jealousy.
- The coworkers, acting as a group, isolated Eserhut by refusing to communicate with him and by socially ostracizing him.
- The coworkers’ conduct interfered with Eserhut’s work and contributed to symptoms including sleeplessness, depression, and indigestion.
- Eserhut complained to management. Management told the coworkers their conduct was hurting the company and urged them to cooperate with Eserhut, but the situation did not improve.
- In mid-October 1983, Eserhut decided he would quit and informed the company president. The president asked him to wait until the president could speak with the coworkers.
- After speaking with them, the president told Eserhut the coworkers had “voted him out.” This was figurative; no vote occurred, and the coworkers lacked authority to hire or fire Eserhut. The president accepted Eserhut’s decision to resign.
- Eserhut sued the coworkers for intentional interference with his employment relationship and later joined Utility Vault on the theory that the company ratified the coworkers’ conduct.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found the coworkers’ conduct interfered with Eserhut’s work, caused him to end his employment relationship, and resulted in $48,500 in damages. Nonetheless, the trial court entered judgment for defendants, reasoning the coworkers were not liable because their conduct was directed at Eserhut rather than at Utility Vault and did not cause Utility Vault to fire him.

## Issues

1. Whether coworkers can be liable for intentional interference with an employment relationship when their conduct interferes with the employee’s performance and contributes to the employee’s resignation, even if the conduct is not aimed at the employer and does not cause a discharge.
2. Whether Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act exclusive-remedy provisions bar an employee’s intentional-tort claim against coworkers.
3. Whether the employer was entitled to attorney fees under RCW 4.84.185 on the ground that the ratification claim against it was frivolous.

## Decision

- The court reversed the judgment in favor of the coworkers and remanded because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring interference aimed at the employer; the case required further proceedings on whether the coworkers acted with the requisite intent.
- The court rejected the coworkers’ cross-appeal and held the Industrial Insurance Act exclusivity provisions do not bar an employee’s intentional-tort action against coworkers.
- The court affirmed judgment for Utility Vault and affirmed denial of attorney fees because the ratification claim was not frivolous under RCW 4.84.185.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional interference with a contractual relationship or business expectancy requires: (1) a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy, (2) defendant’s knowledge of that relationship, (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination (or preventing performance), (4) interference for an improper purpose or by improper means, and (5) resulting damages.
- Interference is not limited to conduct directed at the third party to the contract; liability may also arise where a defendant intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s performance of the plaintiff’s own contract with a third person (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766A).
- An at-will employment relationship can qualify as a protected contractual relationship or business expectancy for purposes of intentional interference.
- Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act does not immunize coworkers from liability for intentional torts committed against another employee; exclusivity does not bar such claims.
- A claim is frivolous for attorney-fee shifting under RCW 4.84.185 only if it cannot be supported by any rational argument on the law or facts; lack of success does not, by itself, make a claim frivolous.

## Conclusion

The court held that coworkers may be liable for intentional interference when they intentionally interfere with an employee’s ability to perform his own employment relationship and their conduct contributes to the employee’s resignation, even if they do not induce the employer to fire the employee; it reversed and remanded for further findings on intent, held workers’ compensation exclusivity does not bar intentional-tort claims against coworkers, and affirmed denial of attorney fees because the ratification claim against the employer was not frivolous.


Eserhut v. Heister, 762 P.2d 6 (1988)