Goulding v. NJ Friendship House, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 February 2021
• Docket Number: A-48 September Term 2019,083726
• Citation: 244 A.3d 725,245 N.J. 157
• Parties: Kim GOULDING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NJ FRIENDSHIP HOUSE, INC., Respondent-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

245 N.J. 157

244 A.3d 725

Kim GOULDING, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.NJ FRIENDSHIP HOUSE, INC., Respondent-Respondent.

A-48 September Term 2019

083726

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued October 13, 2020

Decided February 8, 2021

Richard A. Grodeck argued the cause on behalf of appellant (Piro, Zinna, Cifelli, Paris & Genitempo, attorneys; Richard A. Grodeck, Nutley, on the brief).

James E. Santomauro argued the cause on behalf of respondent (Biancamano & DiStefano, attorneys; James E. Santomauro, on the brief).

JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under New Jersey's Worker's Compensation Act, an employee injured during a social or recreational activity generally cannot receive compensation for those injuries. See N.J.S.A. 34:15-7. However, the Act provides an exception to that general rule and expressly permits compensation "when such recreational or social activities [(1)] are a regular incident of employment and [(2)] produce a benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale." Ibid. In this case, the Court considers whether the injuries sustained by claimant Kim Goulding at an event hosted by her employer are compensable.

Goulding was an employee of North Jersey Friendship House, Inc. (Friendship House), a non-profit organization that assists individuals with developmental disabilities. She worked for Friendship House as a cook, and she taught cooking classes to Friendship House's clients. Goulding was injured when she fell while volunteering as a cook at "Family Fun Day," an event Friendship House held for its clients.

The workers’ compensation court here focused on Family Fun Day as a whole, concluded it was a social or recreational activity, and found that Goulding was not entitled to compensation under the two-part test of N.J.S.A. 34:15-7. The Appellate Division affirmed that decision.

We disagree. Whether an activity is social or recreational should turn on the employee's role in the activity -- whether she is participating as a guest or providing services for her employer at the event. If the employee is helping to facilitate the activity in the manner that occurred here, the event cannot be deemed a social or recreational activity as to that employee, and any injuries sustained by the employee while acting in that capacity should be compensated. That result accords with the liberal construction due the Act as "humane social legislation." See Hersh v. County of Morris, 217 N.J. 236, 243, 86 A.3d 140 (2014) (quotation omitted).

We also disagree with the determination that Goulding does not meet the two-prong exception established in N.J.S.A. 34:15-7. Her role at the event, which was planned to be held annually, was the same as her role as an employee; but for her employment at Friendship House, she would not have been asked to volunteer and would not have been injured. Viewed in that light, Goulding's injury was "a regular incident of employment." Additionally, Friendship House received a benefit from Family Fun Day beyond an improvement to employee health and morale. The event was not a closed, internal event for the Friendship House team. Rather, it was an outreach event designed to celebrate and benefit Friendship House's clients, thereby creating goodwill for Friendship House in the community that could expand its fundraising opportunities in the future. Goulding was therefore eligible for compensation for her injuries under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.

Because we conclude that Goulding's injuries were compensable, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand the matter to the worker's compensation court for further proceedings.

I.

A.

We begin by summarizing the pertinent facts and procedural history. Friendship House is a non-profit organization whose mission is "to build the skills of individuals with varying abilities and developmental needs by providing, within a safe haven, comprehensive clinical treatment, vocational training and work opportunities in order to achieve meaningful and productive lives."

In November 2016, Goulding started working for Friendship House. In September 2017, she was a chef/cook for Friendship House, working Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Goulding was paid hourly. Her responsibilities included cooking and preparing meals for Friendship House's clients and teaching vocational classes to clients so that they could learn how to cook certain dishes. During lunch hours, Goulding ran the grill and worked closely with Friendship House's clients, including individuals on the autism

spectrum.

On September 23, 2017, Friendship House hosted its first ever "Family Fun Day," which it planned to hold as an annual event moving forward. The event was designed to provide a safe and fun environment with recreational activities, including games and music, for the clients of Friendship House and their families. Friendship House employees were asked to volunteer to work the event, but there were no consequences for those who chose not to volunteer. Goulding volunteered to work the event as a cook, her normal job at Friendship House.

On the day of the event, Goulding arrived between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and began setting up for breakfast. After breakfast, she began preparing for lunch. Sometime between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., Goulding stepped in a small pothole in the parking lot and fell down, injuring her ankle. Several people at the event assisted her after she fell, getting her ice and advising her to remain seated with her foot elevated. Goulding continued to help the other cooks prepare lunch while keeping her foot elevated. She left the event at around 2:30 p.m. Goulding did not participate in any of the games or activities at the event.

B.

Goulding filed a claim with the State of New Jersey, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Workers’ Compensation against Friendship House asserting she suffered a work-related injury to her right foot and ankle at Family Fun Day. Friendship House filed an answer denying that Goulding was employed when she was injured.

Goulding filed a Notice of Motion for Temporary and/or Medical Benefits for surgery to repair the injuries to her ankle

. She also sought temporary disability benefits as of the date of her injury. In support of her claim, Goulding provided a certification from counsel and medical records. Friendship House filed a statement denying Goulding was entitled to any medical treatment or temporary disability benefits because she was not working for Friendship House when the injury occurred.

The motion was heard in May 2018. The judge issued a decision on the record, determining that Goulding's accident did not occur in the course of her employment. The workers’ compensation court determined Family Fun Day was a social or recreational event. The compensation court then turned to the two-part exception found in N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 to determine compensability for an injury sustained during a "recreational or social activity."

The court held that Family Fun Day was not a regular incident of Goulding's employment as required by the first part of the N.J.S.A 34:15-7 test because this was the "first and only" Family Fun Day Friendship House had sponsored, and the incident in question was not the cooking activity Goulding volunteered for, but her attendance at the event generally. The compensation court added that Goulding volunteered to help at the event, was not compelled to do so, and could have volunteered for a position other than the one she held at her job. The compensation court also held that Family Fun Day did not produce a benefit to Friendship House beyond an improvement to employee health and morale as required by the second part of the statutory test because there was no fundraising or marketing associated with the event. Thus, the court dismissed Goulding's claim with prejudice.

The Appellate Division affirmed that decision. The appellate court first agreed that the test set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 governed the inquiry because Family Fun Day was a recreational or social activity: the event was designed to celebrate the clients; it included food, games, and music; Goulding volunteered to attend or help; and it was held on a Saturday, not a regular workday.

The Appellate Division then concluded that Goulding did not meet her burden on the first prong of the statutory exception because Family Fun Day was not a regular incident of her employment. The Appellate Division reasoned: "[t]his was the first Family Fun Day;" it was held outside normal working hours; employees were not required to volunteer or attend; if an employee did volunteer, she could do so in any capacity; and Goulding could have chosen to help with games or prizes, she did not have to cook. Thus, Family Fun Day could not be deemed "as customary as a lunch or coffee break."

Because the Appellate Division concluded that Goulding did not satisfy the first prong, it did not address the second prong of the N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 test but did note there was a "lack of support in the record [to show] that there was any benefit to [Friendship House] in the form of positive public relations."

We granted Goulding's petition for certification. 241 N.J. 66, 224 A.3d 1073 (2020).

II.

A.

Goulding first argues that she was not engaged in a recreational or social activity when she was injured because, although the event itself may have involved games and social activities for the clients of Friendship House, she took no part in those activities and was instead there to work.

Alternatively, Goulding argues that if her involvement with Family Fun Day was social or recreational, then she is entitled to compensation under the two-part test of N.J.S.A. 34:15-7. Goulding contends Family Fun Day should be deemed a "regular incident of employment" under the first part of that test because it was created as an "annual" event. Turning to the second part of the test, Goulding contends the workers’ compensation court and Appellate...