New Jersey Employment Law Blog - Current Information on Employment Law and Business/Civil Litigation

The NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development [LDW] has announced maximum weekly Unemployment Insurance and Workers' Compensation benefits for 2011.  Details here.

In light of the economy, I suppose that it should come as no surprise that benefits have decreased for the first time in 40 years.  Surprising or not, it's still a bit of a shock.  The maximum weekly unemployment benefit, for instance, has been reduced from $600 to $598. 

And since it's Monday, how about a mini-rant just to get the week off to a good start?  Why does LDW's name have to be so darned long?  Really, folks, we knew who you were and what you did when you were just the plain old Department of Labor.

Here's an interesting question that arose in Delaware which came to our attention through Francis Pileggi at the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog.  It's slightly off topic, but you don't often see facts like this, so the story is worth telling.

Injuries to employees that occur at work are usually subject to the exclusive remedy provided by each state's Worker's Compensation system.  What happens, however, when employees are engaged in "horseplay" during business hours that results in an injury?  Is the injured employee limited to his remedy in comp, or does he have the ability to recover against co-employees outside of the comp system? 

In Grabowski v. Mangler, the employer apparently tolerated an atmosphere in which employees would play pranks on each other in between assignments.  In this particular case the plaintiff was ambushed by three co-workers, thrown to the ground, and wrapped from his shoulders to his anklesin duct tape.  Normally claims against the co-employees would be barred. 

The Delaware Supreme Court said that if the conduct of the rambunctious employees was within the scope or course of their employment, then Worker's Comp would bar the plaintiff's lawsuit.  If not within the scope or course of their employment, then the claim would be allowed.  The case was sent back to the trial court to make that determination.  We will let you know if we see more on this one.  If for no other reason than that I'm interested to find out how binding a co-worker in duct tape fits in anyone's job description.   

Tlumac v. High Bridge Stone is an interesting case from the New Jersey Supreme Court. It deals with the availability of workers compensation benefits for a truck driver who had been drinking, but for separate reasons may have been tired. He drove off the side of a highway, was injured, and applied for workers comp benefits. His employer opposed the application on the basis of a 1911 statute that denies benefits where intoxication proximately causes a work related injury.

Expert testimony put Mr. Tlumac's blood alcohol context between .10 and .18 at the time of the accident. However, he also presented evidence that he had been sleep deprived due to the need to care for his wife, and because he had been making repairs to his house.

Earlier cases interpreting the intoxication statute held that intoxication had to be the sole proximate cause of the injury for the defense to apply. Here Mr. Tlumac presented enough evidence to establish another concurrent cause for the accident in the form of sleepiness unrelated to alcohol. Thus, the court held that he was entitled to recover benefits.

So, yes, as odd as it sounds, you can't recover if you're just drunk. You can recover if you're both drunk and tired for another reason.

The Court took pains to point out that it was only carrying out the intention of the Legislature, but suggested that the Legislature might consider revisiting the nearly century old law to be sure that it comports with modern reality.