Skip to main content

An Employer Might Have a Duty to Protect Its Employees If Third Party Criminal Activity Was Foreseeable


Jimenez v. 5454 Airport, LLC - United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division


Facts:  Alex Neftaly Iraheta Jimenez ("Jimenez") worked as a cashier at an Airport Texaco gas station and convenience store owned by 5454 Airport, LLC ("5454 Airport").  One evening when he was working, there was an attempted robbery at his store.  During the course of the attempted robbery, Jimenez and the robbers shot at each other.  Jimenez was wounded in the shoulder and went to the hospital.  Approximately five months later, Jimenez left the job and subsequently filed a suit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and a claim for negligence. 5454 Airport proceeded to move for summary judgment on the negligence claim.

Holding:  In a call back to the first semester of 1L in law school, to establish a valid cause of action for negligence, it must be established:  1) the defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff; 2) the defendant breached that duty; and 3) plaintiff suffered damages proximately caused by the breach.  In the employment context, an employer has a duty to use ordinary care in providing a safe workplace for its employees.  However, an employer is not an insurer of its employees' safety.  As a result, determining whether an employer breached its duty to provide a safe workplace is fact specific.

While a person generally has no legal duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third party, a person that controls the premises has a duty to use ordinary care to protect invitees from criminal acts of third parties if the person "knows or has reason to know of an unreasonable risk of harm" to the invitee.  (Courts in Texas have previously held that an employee is an "invitee" on his employer's premises.)  Whether a risk of criminal activity was foreseeable "must not be determined by hindsight but rather in light of what the premises owner knew or should have known before the criminal act occurred."  

In this case, evidence had been presented which established that there had been other assaults and crimes at the Airport Texaco in the months before Jimenez was injured.  In fact, Jimenez had been the victim of another armed robbery the week before the attempted robbery in which he was shot.  According to the evidence in the record, there were 73 crimes reported in the area around the Airport Texaco between May 2012 and October 2015 (around the time of the robbery in which Jimenez was injured.)  Based upon this evidence, the Court held the similarity, recency, frequency, proximity, and publicity of the prior criminal activity at or near the Airport Texaco put 5454 Airport on notice of the foreseeable risk of injury to its employees.

Judgment:  The District Court denied 5454 Airport's partial motion for summary judgment on Jimenez's negligence claim on the grounds that sufficient facts had been plead which established that 5454 Airport, as Jimenez's employer, could have foreseen the risk of violence from a third party in the workplace and therefore may have owed a duty to protect its employees.

The Takeaway:  I typically do not come across many negligence claims (in the employment law context) that merit a case brief.  This one was an exception as the Court streamlined the relevant caselaw and narrowed things down quite well.  Of course, bear in mind that at this stage, the Court did not hold that 5454 Airport owed its employees a duty to protect them from the violence of a third party.  Instead, as the caselaw pointed out, each case is analyzed on a fact specific and individual basis.  While Jimenez survived 5454 Airport's partial motion for summary judgment, the issue (and potential liability) of 5454 Airport was not decided at this stage.  It will be interesting to see how this case plays out at trial.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Atlas

Date:  October 13, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/ELD/Jimenez5454Airport101317.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more