Matter of Cox v. Saks Fifth Avenue ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                           State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: July 9, 2015                      520289
    ________________________________
    In the Matter of the Claim of
    JEREMY COX,
    Appellant,
    v
    SAKS FIFTH AVENUE et al.,                   MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    Respondents.
    WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD,
    Respondent.
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:   May 28, 2015
    Before:   Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Lynch, JJ.
    __________
    Geoffrey Schotter, New York City, for appellant.
    Jones Jones, LLC, New York City (Sarah Thomas of counsel),
    for Saks Fifth Avenue and others, respondents.
    __________
    Garry, J.P.
    Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board,
    filed March 17, 2014, which ruled that claimant did not sustain
    an accidental injury in the course of his employment and denied
    his claim for workers' compensation benefits.
    Claimant began working as a sales associate in the
    employer's handbag department in November 2011. In April 2012,
    he filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging
    that work-related stress caused him to develop anxiety disorder,
    panic disorder, agoraphobia, insomnia and weight loss. Following
    hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ)
    -2-                520289
    established the claim for anxiety, panic disorder and depression.
    Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding
    that claimant had not demonstrated that he was exposed to stress
    that was any greater than that experienced by his peers.
    Claimant appeals.
    We reverse. "Mental injuries caused by work-related stress
    are compensable if the claimant can show that the stress that
    caused the injury was greater than that which other similarly
    situated workers experienced in the normal work environment"
    (Matter of Cerda v New York Racing Assn., 112 AD3d 1075,
    1075-1076 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations
    omitted]; see Matter of Guillo v NYC Hous. Auth., 115 AD3d 1140,
    1140 [2014]). Claimant testified that, during a promotional
    event for a manufacturer of high-priced luxury goods, he was
    directed by a supervisor to fabricate reserve orders by falsely
    indicating that individual customers intended to purchase the
    manufacturer's handbags for the purpose of increasing the store
    inventory. Claimant stated that he submitted two fabricated
    orders during the event, which required the inclusion of
    customers' personal information, including credit card numbers.
    Two of claimant's supervisors confirmed that the manufacturer
    required reserve orders before it would ship handbags, and that
    employees were instructed to submit as many reserve orders as
    possible for the purpose of increasing the store inventory. The
    supervisors neither admitted nor denied that employees were
    instructed to submit fabricated reserve orders on the day of the
    promotional event, but they confirmed that similar practices had
    occurred at the store in the past. One of the supervisors
    testified that claimant became upset during the promotional event
    and that she heard him tell the other supervisor that he did not
    want to submit false orders. The supervisors denied that credit
    card numbers were included in reserve orders, but a coworker
    testified that such information was included.
    The WCLJ found claimant's testimony to be credible and
    determined, among other things, that he had been directed by a
    supervisor to submit false reserve orders in order to deceive the
    manufacturer and that credit card numbers were included in the
    reserve orders. The WCLJ concluded that claimant sustained a
    mental injury as a result of "the stress of being directed to
    -3-                520289
    engage in deceptive business practices" and that this stress was
    greater than that experienced in the normal work environment
    because "[p]ressure to engage in unethical and illegal practices
    . . . cannot be considered a normal work environment." The Board
    subsequently disallowed the claim, finding that, because all of
    the employees in claimant's department were pressured to place
    reserve orders and were given the same instruction, claimant's
    stress was not greater than that of similarly situated workers.
    We reject this analysis. The Board neither contradicted
    nor commented upon the findings of the WCLJ that claimant's
    supervisors directed him to engage in a deceptive business
    practice by submitting falsified reserve orders, and it did not
    exercise its power to reject the underlying credibility
    determinations (see Matter of Nassar v Masri Furniture & Mdse.,
    Inc., 91 AD3d 1022, 1022-1023 [2012]). Thus, the remaining basis
    for the Board's conclusion that claimant was not subjected to
    stress greater than that experienced in a normal workplace is
    that other employees were similarly directed to engage in
    wrongful conduct. This analysis is untenable; the imprimatur of
    "normal" cannot be placed upon a workplace where an employee is
    directed to carry out a deceptive, unethical or potentially
    illegal practice because an employer also gave that direction to
    other employees (compare Employer: Macy's East, 
    2012 WL 2261361
    ,
    *7, 2013 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 4796, *18-*19 [WCB No. G000 7942, June
    8, 2012]). The mere fact that other employees may have received
    the same instruction cannot support this conclusion. Here, there
    was no other evidence from which it may be concluded that
    directions to place false reserve orders constituted part of a
    normal work environment for similarly situated employees. The
    employer's witnesses testified that corrective action – including
    termination – had been taken when similar practices occurred at
    the store in the past, and claimant testified that he would have
    been fired for such conduct in other upscale department stores
    where he had previously worked. Accordingly, we find that the
    Board's determination is not supported by substantial evidence
    (compare Matter of Cerda v New York Racing Assn., 112 AD3d at
    1076).
    Egan Jr., Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur.
    -4-                  520289
    ORDERED that the decision is reversed, with costs, and
    matter remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further
    proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 520289

Judges: Garry

Filed Date: 7/9/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024