Palmer v. Bi-Mart Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the worker’s compensation statute’s exclusive remedy provision did not preempt a female employee’s sex discrimination claim when her employer’s sexual harassment caused her to develop “stress syndrome”
• finding that the exclusivity provision did not apply where the plaintiff sought remedy under both anti-discrimination and workers’ compensation statutes
• finding that the “legislature [] created two separate statutory schemes to protect employees from those separate injuries”
• supervisor engaged in course of harassment verbally and through notes with sexually explicit wording
• supervisor engaged in course of harassment verbally and through notes with sexually explicit wording
• plaintiffs allegations that her employer “failed to stop a continuing course of intentional conduct [by a supervisor] aimed specifically at plaintiff after being informed of it” adequately alleged that her employer deliberately intended to harm her

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).