Horodyskyj v. Karanian

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that most claims of sexual harassment fall into \the category of inherently private assaults that do not arise out of the employment\ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• \[Wle have applied the positional-risk or 'but-for' test to determine whether such injuries [attributable to neutral risks] arise out of the employment.\
• “The exclusive-remedy provisions of the Act bar civil actions in tort against an employer for injuries that are compensable under the Act.” (citing §§ 8-41-102, -104)
• workers’ compensation “provides exclusive remedies for employees suffering work-related injuries and occupational diseases”
• Incidents which are “inherently related to employment[] are those that have ‘an inherent connection with employment and emanate from the duties of the job.’” (quoting Popovich v. Irlando, 811 P.2d 379, 383 (Colo. 1991))
• \[Aln injury is compensa-ble under the Act as long as it is triggered by a neutral source that is not specifically targeted at a particular employee and would have occurred to any person who happened to be in the position of the injured employee at the time and place in question.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).