Goyden v. State Judiciary and the standard for compensable workplace stress.

The petitioner was employed as an inspector by the respondent. From 2003 through 2007, he was supervised by John Doe ("Doe") who, the record clearly established, managed the department in which the claimant worked in a very lax manner. Employees were not held to requirements of strict time reporting, were allowed to come and go without significant accountability, and their whereabouts were not closely monitored during the work day. The petitioner, like other employees, often left work early without accounting for his time. There was also testimony from a co-employee that the petitioner occasionally conducted his own side business manufacturing signs while he was on the clock with the employer.

Doe retired in February 2007 and was replaced by John Smith ("Smith"). Smith immediately informed his staff that he intended to strictly enforce the rules. He required strict time-keeping enforcement, requiring employees in the field to sign in and out during the day. Under Doe's administration, the petitioner was soon written up for a number of time-related infractions involving unexplained periods of absence from work. The petitioner did not deny the infractions but claimed he was being singled out for reprimand while other employees engaged in similar behavior. Additional infractions involved the petitioner's filing of incomplete or falsified inspection reports resulting from complaints originating outside the department. A final disciplinary charge involved the petitioner's violation of the Middlesex County residence policy. Although the petitioner did admit that he resided outside of Middlesex County during the entire period of his employ with the department, he claimed this information was at all times well known by his supervisors. Following a disciplinary hearing where the petitioner was found guilty of all infractions, his employment with the department was terminated.

The petitioner soon filed a claim with the Division of Workers' Compensation alleging that he suffered anxiety, depression and insomnia as a result of workplace stress due to unfair treatment, retaliation and harassment by his supervisor. Following trial, the Judge of Compensation held that any stress the petitioner suffered resulted from nothing more than merited criticism by his supervisor and did not satisfy the criteria for a compensable occupational disease within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 34:15-31 and N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, as interpreted by Goyden v. State Judiciary, 256 N.J. Super. 438 (App. Div. 1991). In Goyden, the Appellate Division held that the petitioner must demonstrate the existence of objective evidence of job stress peculiar to the particular workplace which, when viewed realistically, establishes working conditions sufficiently stressful to contribute to the development of psychiatric disability. As the Goyden Court stated, "Merited criticism cannot be considered to be a condition characteristic of or peculiar to a particular trade, occupation, or place of employment, as it is common to all employment."

In affirming the Judge of Compensation's dismissal of the petitioner's claim, the Appellate Division reasoned that "[t]he gist of the Goyden decision is that the exercise of managerial prerogative in cases where an employee refuses to conform to work rules" is not a compensable condition. As the Appellate Division concluded, "[t]he fact that Petitioner may have been criticized for the way he did his job by his boss and the fact that he wasn't happy with the tougher rules and tighter discipline under Mr. Smith is not sufficient to constitute grounds under Goyden that would qualify him to receive Workers' Compensation benefits."

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2012