Two seasonal employees of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), who served as lookouts (one for 11 fire seasons, the other for 3) sued in civil court for physical injuries they alleged were caused by radiation poisoning from exposure to toxic radio frequency and microwave radiation emitted from the telecommunications equipment on the lookout and the telecommunications towers.
They claimed they were never warned about the risks of radiation
exposure, a dangerous condition and ultrahazardous activity, and had they known they would have terminated the employment.
They further alleged that state and federal statutes and regulations created a mandatory duty to provide a "safe work site and/or place of employment free from recognized hazards."
They attempted to
evade the exclusive remedy rule by
claiming that the injuries they suffered violated the
fundamental public policy of the State of California (a rare exception to the rule, usually reserved for such things as an employer making an employee commit a crime).
In an unpublished opinion, the Third District dismissed the claims, stating:
From a layperson's perspective, negligent, willful and, worse yet, egregious misconduct by an employer offends our basic notion of the state's public policy to protect its employees. But plaintiffs misunderstand the nuances of the law and the finely tuned "public policy" exception to exclusivity."
The Court ruled that the plaintiffs misconstrued "the breadth of the exception." It stated that not just any violation of a public policy allows an employee to bring an action at law and that these facts did not fall within the exception.
The case is Garcia v. Dept. of Forestry.
To read the full opinion,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.
- Help for the Injured Worker
