It's a beautiful spring Saturday evening in the Borough Park. After a long, dismal winter, the employees of Bob's Locksmith Company have all gathered to celebrate the warm weather with their families and fellow employees by spending their day off eating, drinking and playing a friendly game of softball. Big John is up to bat and he hits a long, fly ball to centerfield. Skinny Pete fades back, but misses the fly ball and has to throw Big John out at third base. Big John, running as fast as he can, takes a flying leap into third base and lands on his outstretched hand, breaking all of his fingers. A terrible end to an evening which was meant to a fun filled night for the families of the employees at Bob's Locksmith Company. The following week, Big John files a workers' compensation claim against Bob's Locksmith Company. But, how can that be possible? Surely this cannot be a work related injury! OR can it?
Under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, an individual must be in the "course and scope of employment" in order to receive benefits for an injury. Under the scenario provided above, isn't it clear Big John the locksmith, was outside of the "course and scope of his employment" while playing softball? Isn't it clear Big John was doing something so foreign to his job as a locksmith that his workers' compensation claim has to be denied? Unfortunately, the answer is "maybe not."
In various cases in Pennsylvania, employees have been found to be in the "course and scope of employment" while exercising at home in order to meet physical fitness requirements of their employer; while engaged in a softball game on an employer sponsored softball team; and even while attending social events at the home of a co-employee. But, how can these social events, which are seemingly wholly unrelated to any possible employment, be "in the course and scope of employment?"
In order to come to terms with the decisions above, it must be understood that the Pennsylvania Courts have consistently stated that "course and scope issues" must be given a liberal interpretation and application. When dealing with "social events," the Courts have also consistently explained that in determining these cases, the positive effects social activities have on the morale of employees cannot be underestimated. This, in turn, provides a benefit to an employer in building good relationships among employees. Stated more simply: Happy employees make good employees. Therefore, employees who participate in certain "social activities" are "engaged in the furtherance of the business of their employer."
However, although the Courts liberally construe "social events," not every social activity is considered to be "in furtherance of the employer's affairs." Specifically, the Courts analyze an employer's level of participation in promoting, sponsoring, or condoning these events. Events which are merely encouraged by the employer, but not monetarily sponsored nor promoted by the employer, may not be events which "further the employer's business." The level of involvement by the employer in scheduling and running the event also serves as a determining factor in whether ot the event provides a benefit to the employer. The less involvement by the employer in planning an event, the less likely it is an employee injured at the event is "in the course and scope of employment."
Ultimately, employers should be cognizant of social events that seem to be completely unrelated to business activities, but may bring about liability for a "work related injury." However, by keeping their eye on the ball, employers just might avoid striking out.
By: Jeffrey Seyfried