Transit Employee Can Be Compensated, Can not Sue Employer for Assault Accidents

A District of Columbia appeals court ruled that a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) employee cannot sue his employer after seeking compensation under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act for an attack he suffered in the workplace.

A district court previously ruled that plaintiff Teshome Workagegnehu cannot claim further damages from his employer because of his employment after he was unsatisfied with an employee compensation order he had requested. The appeals court upheld this decision.

This came after Workagegnehu and Martin Van Buren, both WMATA employees, were at a subway kiosk in Arlington, Virginia when a customer asked for help using the SmarTrip machine. Van Buren berated the customer and dismissed him according to the opinion of the court of appeal.

Workagegnehu then volunteered to help as he would be servicing the machines anyway, but Van Buren told Workagegnehu not to touch the machines. However, Workagegnehu helped the customer, performed its maintenance, and returned to the kiosk. Van Buren told Workagegnehu it was not his responsibility to help customers and the two discussed their roles, the opinion paper said.

During this conversation, Van Buren suddenly attacked Workagegnehu, pushed him to the ground, and hit him until he passed out. When Workagegnehu tried to get up, Van Buren attacked him again. Several customers and other employees saw the incident. Police arrested Van Buren, who was later convicted of assault, while Workagegnehu was seriously injured and had to be hospitalized.

Workagegnehu first tried to get the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission to cover his hospital bills. Six weeks later, Workagegnehu sued WMATA and its general manager Paul Wiedefelt for assault and willful emotional distress in the District of Columbia District Court.

Workagegnehu and WMATA later filed a motion in Virginia for a compensation order for workers. It happened eight days after Workagegnehu filed his complaint in the district court, and he continued to pursue his complaint in the district court despite the workers’ compensation order.

The defendants moved to dismiss Workagegnehu’s lawsuit for lack of substantive jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The district court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear Workagegnehu’s claims, but granted the motion to dismiss because no claims were made. This is because the court ruled that Virginia’s Workers’ Compensation Act excluded Workagegnehu’s claim as his violation resulted from his employment. Workagegnehu appealed the dismissal and his appeal was accepted by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act requires employers and employees to pay and accept compensation for accidental personal injury or death resulting from employment. It offers workers legally guaranteed compensation in exchange for the employer’s immunity from the lawsuit, according to the appeal court’s opinion.

“When an employee suffers such an injury, the law is the only and exclusive remedy available to the employer,” the appeals court document stated.

In Workagegnehu’s case, the appeals court found that his attack was due to the way he carried out his duties as a WMATA employee, rather than as a personal attack directed against him.

“While attacks are often personal, they don’t have to be,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge David Sentelle in his opinion. “If an employee attacks a colleague because of a quarrel in the workplace, for example about how the employee has done her job or the scope of her responsibilities, injuries result from this attack from the employment.”

Against this background, the appeals court found that the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act excludes Workagegnehu’s further claims.

“The fact that Workagegnehu has already agreed to an employee compensation scheme and that its injuries were caused by an industrial accident confirms our conclusion,” Sentelle wrote. “It would fatally undermine that system if plaintiffs could get an award from the Workers Compensation Commission and then try to get a bigger one in court.”

The court of appeal confirmed the previous judgment of the district court. The case is Workagegnehu v Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

The most important insurance news in your inbox every working day.

Get the insurance industry’s trusted newsletter