Deceased Fish Plant Worker’s Estate Limited To Workers’ Comp Recovery Despite Disturbing Claims

Although the facts alleged by the family of a worker killed in a Mississippi fish processing facility are disturbing, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi concluded that they do not give rise to justiciable tort claims beyond Mississippi’s workers’ compensation regime.  The complaint alleged that following the worker’s conversations with union representatives about organizing the workers at the plant, the worker’s supervisor and others began harassing him, including pushing him into machinery, flattening his tires in the parking lot, and writing obscene messages on his car windows.  This conduct allegedly culminated in the supervisor instructing the worker’s safety watchperson to leave the worker unattended while performing maintenance in an enclosed device with large screws, and then instructing another employee to activate the screws, which resulted in the worker’s death.  Following the filing of the case, the worker’s mother allegedly received flowers on her doorstep with a note that read, “flowers eventually die, like people do,” and the worker’s estate proffered a forensic document examiner to link the handwriting to the worker’s supervisor.

Despite these allegations, the district court granted the plant owner’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the claims were fully compensable under Mississippi’s workers’ compensation regime.  The court explained that even if the worker’s death were an intentional killing by his supervisor, it would not have been a means of accomplishing the purposes of the supervisor’s employment and would not be in furtherance of the plant owner’s business.  The behavior would constitute the independent conduct of a third person acting outside the course and scope of his employment, which is the limited type of non-accidental injury covered by the Mississippi regime, which provides coverage for “injury caused by the willful act of a third person directed against an employee because of his employment while so employed and working on the job.”