Liability for Layoff Heart Attacks
There’s a growing body of evidence that layoffs — or even “persistent perceived job insecurity” — can adversely affect employee health and life expectancy. A recent New York Times article details the travails of laid-off steelworkers in New York. If an employee has a heart attack and dies after being laid off, is the employer liable?
That would be a stretch. Even if some causal link could be shown between the layoff and the heart attack, workers’ compensation might well provide the sole remedy to the employee or his family.
New research on the impact of job loss on health is sobering. A Yale study found that layoffs more than doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke among older workers. A Columbia study concluded that death rates among high-seniority (i.e., older) male employees jumped by 50% to 100% in the year after a job loss. Even 20 years later, deaths were 10% to 15% higher, meaning that any laid-off employee’s life expectancy was cut by a year or more.
Some of the workers who died had other health problems. Some had never had health problems. Experts agree that more investigation is needed to understand the connection between job loss and health problems or death.
One wonders if lawyers will use the judicial system as the forum for this investigation. Intentional infliction of emotional distress? A huge stretch. Negligent infliction of emotional distress? Perhaps not as big a stretch if the employer knew of the employee’s health problems or knew that previously laid-off employees had suffered health problems or death after being let go. Maintaining an unsafe workplace under the Occupational Safety and Health Act? The Obama administration has been making noise about stricter OSHA enforcement.
Regardless of the legal concerns, this new research is a reminder that a layoff should be the last resort. Jobs are important to most folks. Today, they’re at a premium.
Leave a Reply
About Chris Parker
Chris Parker's practice focuses on the representation and counseling of companies in matters pertaining to the workplace and the protection of their intellectual property and trade secrets. In addition to serving as an advocate for clients, Mr. Parker is also trained as a mediator and frequently serves as a third-party neutral.
Read more about Chris Parker
About Jimmy Daniel
Jimmy Daniel provides counseling to businesses of all sizes related to the employment relationship. He assists in the drafting of employment agreements, policies, and handbooks, as well as provides guidance related to compliance with federal, state, and local legislation such as the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Read more about Jimmy Daniel
About Larry Bridgesmith
While serving in an Of Counsel relationship with the firm, Mr. Bridgesmith also serves as the Executive Director at the Institute for Conflict Resolution at Lipscomb University and as an officer and principal in Strategic Resolutions Group, LLC. In these roles, Mr. Bridgesmith brings over 30 years of legal experience in dispute resolution and innovative workplace strategies to clients, students and business entities alike.
Read more about Larry Bridgesmith
# Louann Says:
How many millions of tax dollars will be spent on a study for this. No kidding that losing your job causes stress – I am sure that whoever came up with this was highly educated and spent a lot of time on it too.
So maybe we should now make it a law that you can’t let anyone go because it causes stress -that will work great for businesses…. China would love it since more work will get sent over there. Then we can have businesses that are not doing any business, keep people – can anyone say UAW – jobs bank?
A reminder that layoffs should be a last resort… Do you really think that most companies just do it because they are bored on Friday?
March 12th, 2010 at 7:42 am e
# John Phillips Says:
Louann,
Thanks for you comment, and excuuuuuuuuuse me!
Don’t know about amount of taxpayer money for research. Possibly none, since studies came from Yale and Columbia. Pretty sure nothing close to billions spent on bank and other bailouts.
Don’t think that’s what great for business should be different from what’s great for employees. It is, but we’re all on same team, except for the unemployed, who don’t have a team.
I’m inclined not to believe that a repressive China and a tepid UAW are our underlying problems. A lot more jobs went to China during our fake, sub-prime, securitized boom than have gone during the current recession.
I don’t think that most companies implement layoffs because they’re bored on Friday, but I can’t say for sure. I am sure that layoffs arent’ treated as a last resort. Layoffs have been one of the big profit centers for a lot of companies during the last 18 months. You’d think that brilliant, well-paid executives could do better than that.
Of course, reasonable people can disagree about this sort of thing.
Thanks again for the comment.
John
March 12th, 2010 at 2:01 pm e
# Frances Says:
Employers should not have any liability for health conditions caused by layoffs. Layoffs are used as a last resort not as punishment. Stress is something with which we all deal, some better than others.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:39 pm e
# John Phillips Says:
Frances,
Thanks for your comment, too.
As I indicated in my post, I don’t expect an employee to get very far with a claim that his employer is liable for a heart attack that occurred after a layoff.
It is interesting to consider, however, that stress serves as the basis for employees recovering damages from employers in certain situations, e.g., harassment, discrimination, invasion of privacy, outrageous conduct, etc.
You’re right about stress being something we all deal with. Sometimes, if someone else causes the stress, the law imposes liability. While it’s unlikely to happen in the layoff heart attack situation at the present time, one of these days, who knows?
Thanks again.
John
March 12th, 2010 at 2:15 pm e
# sally Says:
THANK YOU,JOHN! Finally! At times I’ve wondered if this was yet another place to vent the political biases so obvious to one and all. I’m a Republican, but what I’ve observed these past several years has caused me to begin the process of registering as No Political Affiliation. I prefer truth and integrity, neither of which seem much in demand amongst the general populace these days.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:21 pm e