Voila: Converting School Liability Lawsuits to Worker’s Compensation
The case of Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary School District, 96 Cal.App.5th 150 (2023) is an important reminder of how strategic planning can limit civil lawsuit legal exposure, when done properly. The issue in Galt was whether a volunteer was an employee and limited to worker’s compensation for injuries she sustained while performing volunteer services at a school spelling bee.
Generally, when a person is providing volunteer services and is injured during those services, they can pursue a liability lawsuit against the employer. Generally, a person who is a volunteer who does not receive compensation for his other services is not an employee under the exclusive worker’s compensation exclusive remedy rule. Labor Code 3352 subd. (a)(9). However, there are exceptions to the exclusion of volunteers from the definition of “employee.” In particular, Labor Code § 3364.5 states that a volunteer is an “employee” when the governing board of the school district has adopted a resolution that includes person(s) performing volunteer services who are injured “while engaged in the performance of any services under the direction and control of the governing school board district or the county superintendent.”
Galt was seriously injured while performing volunteer work at a public school and filed a civil lawsuit. The defendant school district moved to bifurcate trial, to first try whether Galt’s sole remedy was worker’s compensation.
Plaintiff fought doggedly at the bifurcated trial. She first argued that the resolution passed was by the Galt Joint Union School District, and that it did not apply to the Galt Joint Union Elementary School District. However, evidence established at trial the two names refer to one and the same district. Since it was passed in 1968, ample evidence established the names were used interchangeably.
Plaintiff made three arguments for an extremely narrow construction of the statute. In overview, she argued the school board members and staff had to be aware of Labor Code § 3364.5, and also be personally and directly supervising the volunteer activity, for the volunteer to be deemed as an employee.
The trial and appellate courts rejected each of her arguments including the notion that Labor Code § 3364.5 should be read “to require that every future board member knows of Labor Code § 3364.5 and a resolution passed within the meaning of that statute;” this was not a reasonable interpretation of the statute. The court next rejected the argument the school board must have specific authorization from the board to volunteer at specific events. Finally, the court noted the phrase “direction and control of the governing board of the school district or the country superintendent” does not require literally that board members personally direct or control the volunteer’s work. Each of these conclusions was supported by the legislative history of Labor Code § 3364.5 and its “broad purpose.”
The important takeaways from Galt are that a school district can limit its liability for volunteers, provided the school district has passed a resolution meeting the statutory requirements and that its worker’s compensation insurance expressly and clearly affords coverage for such volunteers. While this may result in increased premiums, it is a small price to categorically exclude the school district from tort lawsuits.
The appellate court opinion in Galt can be found here.
This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Peter O. Glaessner.