Newsletters
Risk Central
Digital Edition
You Be the Judge
Should Attempted Heroics Bar Claim for Benefits?
A night shift cashier for a Circle K convenience store typically reported to work 30 minutes early and ate dinner in the manager’s office before clocking in. The store’s security cameras were connected to monitors in the manager’s office.
One night, the cashier ate his dinner and observed on one of the monitors a young man placing items from the store shelves into his pockets. The cashier proceeded from the office and confronted the suspected shoplifter.
The man ran out of the store, and the cashier chased him, grabbing the hood of his sweatshirt. The suspected shoplifter continued to run, causing the cashier to fall forward and land on his outstretched arm. He sustained serious injuries that necessitated surgery and a hospital stay.
Circle K terminated the cashier after the incident, citing his violation of company policy. Circle K’s employee handbook contained provisions that prohibit employees, for safety reasons, from chasing, pursuing, or attempting to apprehend persons committing crimes on store property.
The handbook also states that the use of force to prevent a crime is outside the scope of employment. Another provision notes that night shift employees will work inside the store unless there is a safety emergency.
A store manager and district manager stated that the policies were in place due to “personal injury issues” outweighing the costs of inventory loss and for the safety of workers, customers, and shoplifters.
The cashier filed a workers’ compensation claim. The administrative law judge denied benefits, finding that his knowing violation of company policy constituted a substantial deviation from the course and scope of his employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, and Circle K appealed.
Was the ALJ correct in finding that the cashier’s injury was not compensable?
- A. Yes. The cashier violated the handbook’s provisions that places the use of force to prevent the commission of a crime outside the scope of employment.
- B. No. Mere safety violations do not entirely deprive an injured worker of benefits.
- C. Yes. The cashier’s action was not furthering Circle K’s business.
How the Court Ruled
The court found that the incident involved a violation of safety rules. The court explained that the mere violation of safety rules do not entirely deprive an injured worker of benefits. Rather, the cashier’s behavior justified a reduction in the benefits awarded.
A is incorrect. The court explained the fact that Circle K adopted a policy that explicitly attempted to limit the scope of employment to exclude workers injured by violation of safety rules from compensation contracted the policy purposes behind the workers’ compensation law.
C is incorrect. The court found that the cashier’s safety violation, even though intentional, did not move his behavior outside the course and scope of his employment or justify a complete bar to recovery. Established precedent would reduce the cashier’s recovery of benefits.
B is correct. In Circle K v. Carter, No. 2015-CA-001527-WC (Ky. Ct. App. 07/29/16, unpublished), the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that the cashier’s safety violation, although intentional, did not move his behavior outside the course and scope of his employment.
Editor’s note: This feature is not intended as instructional material or to replace legal advice.
