The receipt of workers’ compensation benefits typically means the claimant gives up their right to sue the employer or any co-workers who may have been involved in the injury. A mother in Georgia, Maria Sturgess, whose son was murdered at his workplace, sued the company where the murder occurred and her son’s employer, a temporary staffing agency, along with the murderer and another defendant who she claims sold the gun to the murder, for negligence. The courts decided she would be allowed to go ahead with her suit as this case did not fall under the typical exclusive remedy provisions.

Nickifor Zephyrine worked for OA Logistics Services, Inc. in Georgia as a temporary worker employed by StaffChex, Inc. He was working with Christopher Lema at a warehouse for OA Logistics. Lema shot and killed Zephyrine. His mother sought damages from the two companies saying they were negligent in hiring Lema, and continuing to let him work even though he had been convicted and served time for several crimes. Lema and Zephyrine did not even know each other before the incident, so the two companies could not say there was tension or a dispute beforehand that had led to such a violent act. Zephyrine was waiting outside of a supervisor’s office where there was a female employee inside, and Lema approached the female and tried to make an unwanted sexual advance. The female worker pushed him away and he then shot Mr. Zephyrine, who was standing just outside the door, and then tried to advance against her again. The female worker escaped and Mr. Lema was arrested.

OA Logistics argued that they were not negligent. They did not own the warehouse where the murder occurred, they operated it. They also did not do their own background checks because they were assured that StaffChex did thorough background checks before they assigned individuals to work for OA Logistics. Lema applied for the job under a fake name, which is why the background check for Lema did not show any of his past criminal convictions. There were clear inconsistencies in his application yet he was still hired. StaffChex said they were not negligent because they should be entitled to summary judgement as a temporary staffing firm and the murder was for work-related reasons, which would place the murder within the scope of the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation laws.

Initially a court granted summary judgment to the two employers, saying that exclusive remedy was the only option for the claimant’s mother to receive compensation because his death arose within the course and scope of his employment. She appealed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed that decision, saying that he did not die because of anything he was doing related to his work. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was killed at the hands of a co-worker, an unusual circumstance in any workplace really, and definitely not something that is considered within the scope of his duties at this job. His typical job duties were not typically dangerous, nor was his place of work, so exclusive remedy would not bar a tort action. The court ruled she could move forward with her suit and a jury could decide the question of negligence in this case.