## Facts

- Diane Young and Cherie Brott Blackmore worked as legal assistants for Vaughn & Bowden, P.A. (V&B) in two office buildings.
- They alleged repeated exposure at work to toxic mold, a chemical spray used to remediate mold, raw-sewage backups and resulting gas in a restroom that entered office space, and a natural gas leak.
- They claimed V&B initially denied mold, later acknowledged it, attempted remediation, and stated it would look for new office space, but the conditions continued and caused physical and emotional injuries.
- Young and Blackmore (joined by Paul Blackmore) sued V&B and related individuals for intentional torts including battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.
- They also sued the landlord of one building, Jim Lowry and Lowry Development, LLC, asserting premises-liability and related conspiracy theories.

## Issues

1. Whether the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act (MWCA) barred the employees’ tort claims against V&B because the complaint did not allege an employer “actual intent to injure.”
2. Whether the landlord defendants were entitled to interlocutory review of the denial of their motion to dismiss on the record and briefing presented.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and rendered as to V&B and the individual firm defendants, dismissing the complaint because the MWCA provided the employees’ exclusive remedy.
- The Court held the complaint’s factual allegations did not plausibly show V&B acted with an actual intent to injure the employees.
- The Court dismissed the interlocutory appeal as to Lowry and Lowry Development, leaving in place the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss due to inadequate, non-distinct briefing of their issues.

## Legal Principles

- The MWCA generally provides the exclusive remedy for employees injured in the course of employment.
- The intentional-injury exception is narrow: to proceed outside the MWCA, an employee must allege and prove the employer’s actual intent to injure.
- Allegations consistent with negligence, gross negligence, or reckless disregard for safety—even if labeled “intentional”—do not satisfy the actual-intent requirement.
- An interlocutory appellant must distinctly brief and argue issues specific to its own liability and defenses; failure to do so may result in dismissal of the appeal.

## Conclusion

The court held that workplace toxic-exposure tort claims against an employer are barred by MWCA exclusivity unless the complaint alleges facts showing the employer’s actual intent to injure; because the employees alleged at most unsafe workplace conduct short of that standard, their claims against the employer were dismissed, while the landlord’s interlocutory appeal was dismissed for insufficient briefing.


Vaughn & Bowden, P.A. v. Young, 120 So. 3d 971 (Miss. 2013)