|
4938 Worker's compensation was the exclusive remedy for firefighter's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against county based on allegations of harassment in response to his complaints about superiors; this sort of harassment was inherent in the work relationship, unlike sexual harassment, which may be pursued in claims outside of worker’s compensation; further, firefighter’s claim that department was negligent in investigating his complaint was not actionable under Government Code 815.6 because the duty to investigate employee behavior is not mandatory; and, finally whistleblower retaliation claims failed on grounds that his complaints were not “protected activity” under the relevant statutoryprovisions. CitationMUELLER v COUNTY of L.A. (Harassed Firefighter) 176 CA4 809 [See Shoemaker v Myers 52 C3 1; Cole v Fair Oaks 43 C3 148; Hart v Nat’l Mtg 289 CA3 1420; Fermino v Fedco 7 C4 701, T/AT 06/94; Gov’t Code §815.6; Sutherland v City of Ft Bragg 86 CA4 13, T/AT 02/01]
|
|
