Calderon v. Martin Marietta Corp.

675 F. Supp. 1279, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12224, 1987 WL 31379
CourtDistrict Court, D. Colorado
DecidedSeptember 3, 1987
DocketAction 87-F-411
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 675 F. Supp. 1279 (Calderon v. Martin Marietta Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Calderon v. Martin Marietta Corp., 675 F. Supp. 1279, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12224, 1987 WL 31379 (D. Colo. 1987).

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

SHERMAN G. FINESILVER, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed July 2, 1987. Defendant asserts the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Colorado, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 8-40-101, et seq., (the “Act”), provides the exclusive remedy for plaintiff's claims for damages for emotional distress, humiliation and emotional harm. Therefore, defendant requests these claims be dismissed. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

Recovery under the Act is meant to be the employee's exclusive remedy, and to preclude employee tort actions against an employer. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 8-42-102 (1986); Kandt v. Evans, 645 P.2d 1300, 1302 (Colo.1982). Emotional stress is an injury compensable under the Act. Colo. Rev.Stat. § 8-52-102 (1986); City of Boulder v. Streeb, 706 P.2d 786 (Colo.1985). Thus, if plaintiff’s claims for damages for emotional harm are covered by the Act, the claims are not compensable in this suit.

Plaintiff argues the emotional stress claims are not covered by the Act because the claims do not arise from events which occurred during the course of his employment. Thus, plaintiff asserts the emotional stress claims arose following the discovery of memoranda written by his program chiefs criticising his work performance. He maintains the claims could not be work-related because the plaintiff only discovered the existence of the memoranda immediately prior to his discharge from employment.

Plaintiffs argument is unpersuasive. Plaintiffs emotional distress claims do not relate to his layoff which occurred in November, 1986. Instead, the claims relate to the work-related acts of his program chiefs in writing evaluation memoranda about plaintiffs job performance. Complaint IMF 15, 16, 17, 28 and 32. Since these actions and resulting claims are work-related, plaintiff may recover damages for emotional stress only under the Act. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The Workmen’s Compensation Act of Colorado provides plaintiff's exclusive remedy for damages arising from emotional injuries. Plaintiff’s claims for emotional distress, humiliation and emotional harm are DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tolbert v. Martin Marietta Corp.
759 P.2d 17 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1988)
In Re Quest. Sub. by US Ct. of Appeals
759 P.2d 17 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1988)
Kirk v. Smith
674 F. Supp. 803 (D. Colorado, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
675 F. Supp. 1279, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12224, 1987 WL 31379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calderon-v-martin-marietta-corp-cod-1987.