Work-from-home arrangements are a growing trend. And it's no wonder with benefits to employers such as reduced overhead and increased retention as well as to employees, who avoid high gas prices and can work in their comfy slippers if they like. But as we've all heard, most accidents happen in the home. The Tennessee Supreme Court recently addressed for the first time the issue of whether workers' compensation coverage extends to employees working in home offices.
Facts
The employee in this case worked for the American Cancer Society in Nashville. Because of limited office space, she was allowed to convert a spare bedroom in her home into an office while the employer provided the necessary office equipment and supplies. She didn't have any set work hours, but she frequently worked from home and was even allowed to conduct work-related meetings at her house.
While working at home one afternoon, the employee was attacked and injured by a neighbor she'd let into her house while preparing lunch. When she filed a complaint seeking workers' comp benefits, the employer asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the employee's injuries didn't rise out of or occur in the course of her employment. The trial court initially dismissed the case, noting that the attacker wasn't at the employee's house on business. The employee then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Court's Decision
The employee argued that she should be compensated for her injuries because they occurred while she was in a place where she could reasonably be expected to be while fulfilling her work responsibilities. The supreme court noted a line of previous decisions holding that the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act was meant to be liberally construed in favor of coverage for the employee. It also observed that the law was a "social welfare statute." The court also took notice of the trend toward telecommuting, describing it as being primarily beneficial for employers in terms of reducing overhead.
The court agreed with the employee that the attack had occurred when she was in a place where the employer could reasonably expect her to be. It held that the injury had indeed occurred during a "period of employment" at a work site approved by the employer. It explained that the fact that the employee was preparing her lunch, not working, at the time of the attack was irrelevant since it was reasonable and the employer should have expected that she would take a meal break.
The court and the employee parted ways, however, on the issue of whether the injuries rose out of the course of her employment. The court found that in this instance, her employment didn't expose her to the risk of assault by a third party. It noted that she knew her attacker from events in the neighborhood that had nothing to do with her work. For that reason, the court held that there was no coverage and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claim. Wait v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, Court No. 2005CC-321.
Bottom Line
While the employer prevailed in this case, the point to take away is that the highest court in the state has now recognized that injuries occurring in employees' homes may be compensable under certain circumstances. For instance, if the employee hadn't been attacked by a third party but had simply slipped and fallen on the way to the kitchen to make her lunch, under the court's analysis, the claim might have been covered.
It makes little sense to hold employers responsible for ensuring the safety of employees in a setting in which the employee has principal control and the employer has little if any control. Moreover, the court clearly missed the boat in assessing telecommuting as being primarily beneficial to employers, ignoring the fact that more and more employees prefer to work from home and actively seek out such opportunities.
In any event, you should take this expansion of workers' comp coverage into account in weighing the risks and benefits of allowing employees to work from home. Likewise, you may face hard questions from your workers' comp carrier regarding the issue. Unfortunately, the result of this decision may be a reduction of telecommuting opportunities for many employees ― including working parents and others who require flexible work arrangements ― whose "social welfare" the court was ostensibly seeking to protect.
This article is posted with permission from Tennessee Employment Law Letter, which is published by M. Lee Smith Publishers LLC. For more information, go to www.hrhero.com.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
