Sisk v. Tar Heel Capital Corp

603 S.E.2d 564 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P began work for D in July 1992. P was promoted to shift supervisor in 1998. At both her initial hiring and subsequent promotion, D presented P with documentation of D's anti-harassment policy. The policy provided a procedure that employees should follow if they became victims of any form of harassment. Plaintiff signed acknowledgments of receipt of the policy on both occasions and took several quizzes testing her knowledge of the policy. Johnson became the general manager of the restaurant where P worked. Johnson filed disciplinary notices against P on two occasions. P testified that around that time, Johnson began making sexually suggestive comments to her, touching her in inappropriate places, pulling her onto his lap, and placing his hand down her shirt. Johnson's actions left bruises where he grabbed her. On 17 July 2001, P gave notice of her resignation stating, 'I can no longer work with harassment at the hands of James Johnson.' This was the first time D heard about any harassment. P acknowledged she had not followed D's anti-harassment procedures. P experienced panic attacks. D conducted an investigation and immediately suspended and eventually terminated Johnson. D offered P her job back. P did not return to work. Dr. Knoelke diagnosed P with post-traumatic stress disorder including panic attacks and major depressive disorder. P filed a claim with the Commission. The deputy commissioner found that Johnson made sexually suggestive remarks, touched P inappropriately, pulled P onto his lap, placed his hand down her shirt, and had used his supervisory position to place P at risk. The deputy commissioner found that P suffered 'an injury by accident' and was 'entitled to total disability [and] medical expenses incurred' from 18 July 2001 until she returned to work, or by further order of the Commission. D appealed. The Full Commission held that P 'established that she sustained an injury by accident occurring in the course of her employment but failed to establish that her injury arose out of the employment.' 'Sexual assaults are not deemed to be incident to or a natural and probable consequence of the employment under current law.' P's claim was denied and P appealed.