Off the Clock, But Not Off the Hook: Navigating Workplace Injury Claims After Frett v. State Farm
By: Addie Robinson
For roughly 85 years, under Georgia workers’ compensation law, employers and insurers could avail themselves to a solid defense to compensability when an employee’s injury occurred during a scheduled break during which the employee performed no activities in furtherance of the employer’s business. In the landmark case of Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation v. Farr,1 the Georgia Supreme Court held an employee’s injury sustained while walking to the basement of his employer’s building to eat lunch was not compensable because the injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment. The Farr Court held the employee’s actions in walking to the basement during his lunch break arose out of “individual pursuit” (not his employment) such that he could not carry his requisite burden. As O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1(4) requires a compensable injury both “arise out of” and “in the course of” employment, the failure to establish both components of compensability barred entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits.
After Farr, Georgia courts often found injuries occurring while an employee was on a scheduled rest or lunch break did not satisfy the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1(4) and became commonly known as the “lunch break defense.” Once the employee established the accident occurred, the burden shifted to the employer to establish the break was regularly scheduled and the employer exerted no control over the employee during that break.2 Thus, the application of this defense required establishing two elements. First, the injury occurred during a regularly scheduled break, and second, the employer had no control over the employee during the scheduled break.
Unfortunately for employers and insurers, the Georgia Supreme Court significantly narrowed the scope of this defense in recent years. In Frett v. State Farm Employee Workers’ Compensation,3 the employee slipped and fell while leaving the breakroom to eat her lunch outside during an unpaid, but scheduled and mandatory lunch break, during which she was free to do as she pleased. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the State Board and Georgia Court of Appeals’ denial of compensability and found the accident occurred in the course of Frett’s employment because her injury occurred during her workday while still on her employer’s premises in a breakroom provided for employees during breaks and performing activities incidental to her employment, i.e., preparing to eat and entering/exiting the employer’s premises. With respect to the causal connection between Frett’s accident and her employment, the Supreme Court held, after first finding the decision Farr unworkable, outdated and based on flawed reasoning, the facts supported the “arising out of” component rather straightforwardly, as Frett slipped on a wet floor while existing a breakroom, i.e., her work conditions caused her accident and resulting injury.
Overall, the law has evolved with Frett and, now, the fact an injury occurred on a scheduled break is no longer as significant to the analysis of compensability as it was post-Farr but pre-Frett. Rather, the primary analysis in accidents occurring during an employee’s scheduled lunch break is whether the accident occurred on the employer’s premises and whether the activity causing the accident was truly incidental or the result of the employees job duties or conditions of employment.
As we continue to live in a post-Frett world, employers and insurers should still consider the possible reliance of the “lunch break defense,” but will need to carefully investigate the specific details before deciding whether to accept or deny a claim involving such circumstances.
1180 Ga. 266, 178 S.E. 728 (1935).
2Rampley v. Travelers Ins. Co., 239 S.E.2d 183, 143 Ga. App. 612 (1977).
3844 309 Ga. 44; S.E.2d 749 (2020).
Attorney Contact Info
Addie Robinson
addison.robinson@swiftcurrie.com
404.888.6268
