Groesbeck v. Barger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[Plaintiff’s] negligence claim fails because claims for negligence are within the 10 exclusive remedy provisions of the California Workers’ Compensation Act.”
• “claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress made within the context of the employment relationship are within the exclusive remedy provisions of the California Workers Compensation Act”
• “[U]nder California law, claims for negligent and intentional infliction of 13 emotional distress made within the context of the employment relationship are within the 14 exclusive remedy provisions of the [WCA]”
• “Schaffer’s complaints about her 12 cubicle, lack of Internet access, lack of access to a company vehicle, and denial of training fail 13 because the conduct complained of does not constitute adverse employment action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).