BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1093
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1093 (Yamada)
As Amended April 28, 2009
Majority vote
INSURANCE 10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Coto, Garrick, Blakeslee, | | |
| | | | |
| |Charles Calderon, Carter, | | |
| |Feuer, Hayashi, Hill, | | |
| |Niello, Torres | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Provides that a "personal relationship" or "personal
connection" is not established, for purposes of determining a
claim for workers' compensation benefits, based solely on a
third-party aggressor's beliefs regarding sex, race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, marital status, or sexual
orientation where the employee-victim is believed by the
third-party to be a member of one of the protected classes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for a comprehensive system of workers' compensation
benefits for employees who suffer injuries or illnesses during
the course and scope of employment. These benefits include
death benefits paid to spouses and other dependents in the
event an employee dies as a result of his or her job, as well
as medical payments for injuries suffered by the employee,
among other benefits.
2)Provides, as a matter of case law, that a death or injury is
not job-related if the employee is killed or injured as a
result of a personal motivation between a third-party
aggressor and the employee-victim.
FISCAL EFFECT : Undetermined
COMMENTS :
1)The author introduced this bill in response to a recent case.
AB 1093
Page 2
An African-American woman was murdered while at work at a
Dollar Tree store by an individual who, it was later
determined during a psychiatric evaluation, went out intending
to kill the first black person he saw. Unfortunately, the
Dollar Tree employee was that person. Dollar Tree defended
the claim for workers' compensation death benefits by relying
on at least one "personal motivation" case that involved an
element of ethnic hatred, but also involved a prior
relationship between the killer and the victim; and, the
killing only coincidentally occurred on property related to
the victim's job.
Dollar Tree eventually settled this case, but the case presents
the issue of what type of personal motivations qualify to
defeat a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Because
case law was sufficiently vague to cause Dollar Tree to
initially deny the claim, the author believes that clarity in
the law is appropriate.
2)The principle involved in this rationale for denial of a
workers' compensation claim is that if the death or assault
causing injury is based on some personal relationship between
the victim and attacker, and it only coincidentally occurs at
the place of employment, the injury or death is not genuinely
due to the employment. The classic example is the domestic
violence situation, where a spouse or significant other tracks
down his or her estranged partner at the workplace and
inflicts violence. That the victim happened to be at work at
the time the aggressor found him or her does not mean that the
injuries were in the course of employment.
The underlying case law that motivated Dollar Tree (SCIF v. WCAB
(DeVargas) (1982) 133 CalApp3d 643) involved the killing of
two Mexican men in the bunkhouse of their employer. The
killer had met the two victims earlier; and, discussed a sales
transaction involving the victims' vehicle. While the victims
thought they were arranging a sale, the killer had other
ideas. Boasting to friends about how easy it would be to
"blow away Mexicans," the killer pretended to come to the
victims' bunkhouse to complete the sale. The Court of Appeal
ruled that the deaths were not job related, were based on a
prior relationship with the killer, and only coincidentally
occurred at the employer's bunkhouse.
AB 1093
Page 3
Dollar Tree initially seized upon the ethnic hatred element of
the SCIF v. WCAB case to argue that its employee was killed by
a person whose motive involved racial hatred. A careful
reading of the case shows it was the prior actual relationship
that led to the killing. Nonetheless, the author argues that
clarification of these issues is appropriate.
3)The bill, as recently amended, takes a narrow approach to
resolving the vagueness in the law. The new language provides
that a claim shall not be denied "based only on a
determination that the third party injured or killed the
employee solely because of the third party's beliefs?" Thus,
the language allows for an employer to argue that there was a
genuine outside relationship that caused the injury or death,
even if there is some evidence of motivation based on a
protected characteristic. At the same time, the bill ensures
that a truly random hate crime such as the Dollar Tree case is
compensable. Thus the bill takes away any motivation an
employer might have to rely on the vagueness of prior case
law.
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086
FN: 0000598