Was Ice Cream Worker’s Slip in ‘Slides’ in Course of Employment or Violation of Safety Rules?

What Do You Think?

A worker for an ice cream company sought benefits for injuries to his left foot while working. Following a hearing, an arbitrator found that the worker had sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment and that his condition of ill-being was causally related to the work accident.

The employer appealed to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, arguing that the worker had failed to prove that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment because of his knowing violation of the employer's safety rules regarding proper footwear.

In particular, the employer charged that the employee was wearing "slides," which are open-toed, slip-on sandals and, instead of changing into his work boots, he walked toward the break room to charge his phone while wearing his slides. In the breakroom, the worker slipped on soap, resulting in his left foot bending forward.

Regarding the employer's safety rules, evidence showed that the employer supplied the worker with a uniform but provided no footwear. After the probationary period ended, the employer issued the worker a voucher to obtain rubber slip-on work boots, which the employer required its employees to wear while they were on the production floor. Due to contamination concerns, employees were not allowed to take the work boots home. 

The employer's handbook, a copy of which the worker received, indicated that the employer would issue a pair of rubber slip-on boots that must be worn and left at the plant and provided that no sandals or open toed shoes were allowed. Additionally, the worker completed the employer's training modules, including a "slips, trips and falls" module that advised that fractured bones have resulted from falls, that the shoes an employee wears can be a hazard, that slip hazards may exist inside a facility, and that employees should wear non-slip shoes to work. The worker scored 100% on the module.

The worker acknowledged that he was aware of the employer's safety rules, but his understanding was that the rules applied while employees were working on the production floor, not when they first arrived at work or when they were walking to the break room.

He noted that, although the employer gave him a uniform when he began working as a machine operator, the employer did not provide footwear at that time, or at any time during the 60-day probationary period. During that period, the worker wore his own gym shoes while on the production floor. He testified that coworkers wore similar shoes in the same area. The worker stated that his supervisor had observed him wearing tennis shoes on the production floor without reprimanding him.

Additionally, the worker testified that, when he asked for and received a voucher to buy work boots from the employer, he was told that employees were not permitted to wear their work boots home due to the risk of contamination. Accordingly, the worker had to wear his own shoes when entering the plant and walking to his locker.

The commission modified the award but otherwise affirmed and adopted the arbitrator's decision. The employer appealed to court, arguing that there was a question as to "whether an employee in a particular factual setting has placed himself in a position that the injury resulted from a risk purely personal to the employee, and not incidental to or connected with what the employee had to do to fulfill his job duties."

In Illinois, an injury is said to "arise out of" one's employment if its origin is in some risk connected with or incidental to the employment so that there is a causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury. A risk is "incidental to the employment" when it belongs to or is connected with what the employee has to do in fulfilling his or her job duties. 

Did the worker's injury arise out of an in the course of his employment?

A. Yes. The worker did not knowingly violate the employer's rules because a reasonable person could conclude that the ban applied only while employees were working, not when they were walking to the break room. 

B. No. The worker's violation of safety rules by wearing slides on the job, and if an employee injures himself while knowingly violating his employer's safety rule for the sole purpose of his personal convenience, he is acting entirely outside the sphere of his employment, and his injury is not compensable.

If you chose A, you agreed with the court in Ice Cream Specialties, Inc. v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, No. 5-26-0061WC (Ill. App. Ct. 10/05/26), which affirmed the commission's order and held that compensation should not be barred because evidence showed that the worker did not knowingly violate the rule or that the employer acquiesced in the violation of the rule by not enforcing it.

"The Commission found the claimant's testimony that he believed the rule only applied when he was working on the production floor both credible and reasonable," the court wrote. "We cannot say that the Commission's interpretation of the employer's rules or its credibility finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence."

Similarly, evidence supported the assertion that the employer was okay with employees shrugging the rules to get back and forth to the break room.

"The claimant testified that he and other employees repeatedly wore slides along the path from the perimeter of the production area to the break room and were never told they could not do so and were never reprimanded or written up for doing so," the court wrote. "The Commission found this testimony to be credible."

Ruling that the commission's findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court affirmed the ruling in the worker's favor.

Share This Article: