California’s Exclusivity Rule

State Snapshot

State Snapshot		California
Exclusivity Rule

BASIC RULE

In California, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for employees whose injuries arise out of and in the course of employment. 

This means that, in most cases, an injured employee cannot sue his employer in tort–that is, for such things as negligence, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and premises liability. The rule also generally bars claims for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

REQUIREMENTS FOR RULE TO APPLY

The rule applies if all three of the following requirements are met:

1. The worker is an employee;
2. The injury arises out of and in the course of employment; and
3. The injury is one of the normal risks of employment

PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION

The rule does not apply where the employer's conduct contravenes a fundamental public policy. This exception applies in the case of wrongful discharge cases.

CONDUCT EXCEEDS RISKS OF EMPLOYMENT

The rule does not apply where the employer's conduct in question "exceeds the risks inherent in the employment relationship"-- that is, acts that are not a normal part of the employment relationship.

INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION

Under this exception, the exclusivity rule does not apply to an employee injured in the course and scope of employment if the employer:

1. Assaulted the employee; or 
2. Specifically intended to injure the employee.

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE EXCEPTION

This exception involves the rare situation where the employer occupies a separate role unrelated to employment. An example is a product manufacturer whose defective product injures the employee.

POWER PRESS EXCEPTION

In California, the exclusivity rule does not apply if an employer removes or fails to install a manufacturer-required guard on a power press.

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT EXCEPTION

The exclusivity rule does not apply where an employer conceals a worker’s injury and its link to the workplace. This exception arises, for example, in cases of alleged exposure to asbestos or toxic chemicals. 

EMPLOYER FAILS TO OBTAIN COVERAGE

If the employer lacks workers’ compensation coverage, the employee may sue the employer in tort for work-related injuries.

RECENT CASES

Randall v. Home Depot, No. 2:23-cv-00476-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal. 09/25/25)

A Home Depot worker contracted COVID-19 at work and died. Her daughter sued the employer. The employee’s death, the daughter alleged, occurred because Home Depot failed to accommodate her mother to protect her from the virus. Her mother had serious health conditions that put her at special risk. She claimed the employer’s failure to protect her violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the case based on the exclusivity rule. It held that that rule did not bar a claim brought under FEHA. Conduct violating FEHA is not considered a normal risk of the employment relationship and thus falls under an exception to the rule, the court said..

Lee v. California Dep’t of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. F087038 (Cal. Ct. App. 09/12/25)

A pharmacist for a correction facility claimed a supervisor criticized her, unfairly disciplined her, and grabbed and searched her rolling briefcase. She sued for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Rejecting the claim, the court found that the conduct involved supervision, discipline, criticism of job performance, and workplace conflicts—risks inherent to the employment relationship. None of the alleged conduct violated a fundamental public policy. Even inappropriate or harsh supervisory conduct is subject to the exclusivity rule unless it contravenes fundamental public policy, the court said.

Share This Article: