Could Worker Allegedly Hit on by Manager Sue Employer for Negligence?

What Do You Think?

Workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for a workplace injury that arises out of and occurs in the course of employment. A recent case addresses whether the exclusivity rule protects Tennessee employers from civil lawsuits based on a manager’s alleged sexual harassment.

The plaintiff, a customer service representative and project manager for a shipping company, claimed his managers instructed him to meet a manager from the company’s home office. The home office was in France. He claimed that, starting in March 2024, the manager tried to get him drunk, propositioned him for sex numerous times, made sexual comments, offered to send him to Marseille for two months in exchange for sex, and pushed to have his hotel changed so he could be closer to him. The plaintiff rejected the advances. After that, he said, a company senior vice president subjected him to anger, bullying, and unprofessional conduct. He finally quit in September 2024.

The plaintiff sued the company for negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention and supervision. The employer asked the court to throw out those claims, arguing they were barred by the workers’ compensation act’s exclusive remedy provision.

The TWCA generally is the exclusive remedy for an employee’s claims against an employer when the injury arises out of and occurs in the course of employment.

Could the company avoid the case by pointing to the exclusivity rule?

A. No. Tennessee treats sexual harassment as a risk that is not inherent to employment.

B. Yes. The injury clearly occurred in the course of employment.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Dawson v. CMA CGM (America), LLC, №3:25-cv-00901 (M.D. Tenn. 08/21/26), which denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the claims.

The exclusive remedy provision applies only when an employee’s injury falls within the scope of the workers’ compensation law. Tennessee courts generally do not consider injuries resulting from sexual harassment to arise out of employment. This is because they result from conduct that is purely personal. The rule reflects Tennessee’s public policy that sexual harassment should not and cannot be recognized as a risk inherent in any work environment.

While the injury may have occurred in the course of employment, such injuries do not arise out of employment because they result from conduct that is personal rather than from a risk inherent in the employee’s work.

The court refused to dismiss the case.

Share This Article: