Bank Teller's Tort Claim Against Her Employer Fails
If workers' compensation cases in the Florida Supreme Court are rare, they might be even rarer in the federal courts. But in Locke v. SunTrust Bank, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has recently weighed in on a question of workers' compensation immunity under the Florida Workers' Compensation Act.
The plaintiff here was shot during a robbery of the SunTrust bank branch in Winter Haven where she worked. Rather than claiming workers' compensation benefits, she elected to file a tort suit against her employer. In order to get around the "exclusive remedy" provisions of s.440.11, Fla. Stat., she alleged in her complaint that SunTrust's actions - or in this case inactions - were so reckless and outrageous that an injury to her was "substantially certain" to have occurred.
Specifically, she alleged that her branch had been robbed before, during which another teller had been pistol-whipped. Although SunTrust had allegedly thereafter hired a security guard, the guard wasn't on duty on the day of the robbery here because SunTrust had decided to eliminate the security guard's position "for economic reasons." SunTrust also allegedly failed to take a variety of other actions which would have protected the plaintiff from harm. The federal district court dismissed her complaint, but she appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit had little difficulty concluding that the plaintiff''s accident was one "arising out of" her employment and that the facts alleged in her complaint, even if true, were insufficient to show that SunTrust's conduct amounted to an intentional tort. (The Court was careful to note that the robbery in this case took place on 1/8/2002 - prior to the effective date of the 2003 amendments to s.440.11, Fla. Stat. - and that therefore the possible effect of those amendments was not considered in deciding the case).
Maybe the more interesting part of the case is how it ended up in the federal court system in the first place. The answer is that the complaint was originally filed in the Circuit Court for Polk County, but SunTrust - a Georgia corporation - elected to remove the case to federal district court based upon diversity of citizenship.
Another interesting aspect is the fact that the plaintiff evidently did not file her notice of appeal within 30 days from the district court's dismissal of her case. In Florida state courts, that almost certainly would have been fatal to her appeal. The federal courts, however, have a rule of appellate procedure which allows for late-filed appeals if the appellant can demonstrate "excusable neglect." The "excusable neglect" alleged by the plaintiff here was that a legal assistant in her attorney's office had miscalculated the 30-day deadline. The district court concluded that this was "excusable neglect," and the 11th Circuit held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in so finding.
