Safety in the Workplace for At-Home-Employees

In response to COVID-19, more and more employers began instituting “work-at-home” policies for their employees, partly to circumvent legal liability for the transmission of COVID-19 in the workplace. However, in their prudence, employers may have opened themselves to a new realm of legal liability for harm committed against work-at-home employees by third persons.

In the recently published opinion, Colonial Van & Storage, Inc. v. Superior Court of Fresno County (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 18, 2022, No. B317125), the Court addressed whether employers have a duty to ensure that an “off-site meeting place for coworkers and business associates like an employee’s private residence is safe from third party criminal harm[.]”

In Colonial, a young military veteran, Kyle Holaday, who suffers from PTSD due to his service, “suddenly fired a handgun at family members and guests inside his family home. Among the injured were his mother's coworker and a business associate, who were both involved in work-related activities with the mother and stepfather at the time.”

Fortunately for California employers, the Colonial Court answered the above with a resounding, “No”, Colonial Van & Storage did not owe a duty to ensure the employee’s private residence was safe from the third party criminal harm Mr. Holaday committed against the plaintiffs.

“Our analysis of cases relating to plaintiffs’ theories and the Rowland factors leads us to the conclusion that an employer does not have a duty to protect working-at-home employees from third party criminal conduct as a matter of law.” “[P]laintiffs’ proposed definition of control [of the private home], apart from being contrary to precedent, would mean that every employer would be absolutely liable for any injury suffered at home by working-at-home employees. To avoid liability, employers would have the onerous task of ensuring these employees maintained the safety of their private residences and the mental health of their fellow residents and invitees.”

However, despite the clear language above, California employers should not interpret Colonial to mean they hold no duty to provide a safe and healthful workplace for their employees who work from home. The Court’s heavy focus on “foreseeability” leaves open the possibility that an employer could be held liable for third party criminal harm committed at the employee’s residence if the harm was “foreseeable” by the employer.

Specifically addressed in the Colonial opinion was whether the employer, Colonial Van & Storage, had any previous knowledge of Mr. Holaday’s PTSD and gun use. There, the Court found the employer had no such knowledge. Therefore, the “once-in-a-lifetime shooting rampage” was deemed by the Court as not foreseeable.

However, that may not be the case for less than “once-in-a-lifetime” incidents such as this horrendous shooting in Colonial. For example, if an employer were to be placed on notice that its employee is subject to spousal abuse at home, the employer may be found liable for that spousal abuse if it were to take place while the employee was working-at-home because the employer’s prior knowledge of the spousal abuse may deem the abuse as “foreseeable” to the employer.

Therefore, if an employer has any reason to believe an employee may suffer harm while at home, said harm may be deemed “foreseeable”, and the employer should prohibit the employee from working-at-home to avoid the risk of being held liable for the harm.