A female employee traveling for her employer met a “friend” and at her motel room with him became “injured whilst engaging in sexual intercourse when a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled from its mount and fell on her.” She sued the employer under the Australian equivalent of workers comp – and won!

This Australian case piqued our (professional only) interest.   Could it be true?   The Australian Federal Court answered in the affirmative.  Open this link  and read the decision if you do not believe it.

Her claim amounted to this:  under the applicable statute, the employer is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment; compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is intentionally self-inflicted; and compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is caused by the serious and wilful misconduct of the employee but is not intentionally self-inflicted, unless the injury results in death, or serious and permanent impairment.

The lower court (the Employment Tribunal) held for the employer:   the injury was not suffered by her in the course of her employment; the employer had not expressly or impliedly induced or encouraged the applicant’s sexual conduct that evening, nor did the employer know or could reasonably expect that such an activity was contemplated by her. The activity was not an ordinary incident of an overnight stay like showering, sleeping, eating, or returning to the place of residence from a social occasion elsewhere in the vicinity. Rather she was involved in a recreational activity which her employer had not induced, encouraged or countenanced.

The Australian Federal Court reversed:   while it is true that the employer had not expressly or impliedly induced or encouraged the employee’s sexual activity during the evening in question, the underlying question was whether there was a sufficient connection or nexus between the injuries suffered by the employee and her employment. “The relevant connection or nexus to employment was present in this case by virtue of the fact that the[employee’s] injuries were suffered while she was in the motel room in which her employer had encouraged her to stay. … Here the temporal relationship between the [employee’s] injuries and her employment is that they were suffered by her while she was at a particular place where her employer induced or encouraged her to be during an interval or interlude between an overall period or episode of work (emphasis in the original.”

While this case has no relevance at all to employment discrimination, it is nonetheless an interesting diversion on a dreary Monday morning!