Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?
Case Name Sapp v. GEICO
Date 06/01/2011
Note Exclusive remedy barred a claims supervisor's suit against GEICO for intentional infliction of emotional distress, according to an unpublished decision from the 4th District Court of Appeal.
Citation D056603
WCC Citation WCC 37682011 CA
Sapp signed an employment application and specifically initialed a provision which stated the following: "I understand that the GEICO Companies are at will employers . According to Sapp, however, during her interview process GEICO told her they were looking for "long-term," "career" employees. After Sapp starting making complaints to her, Warford was distant and dismissive and often appeared irritated with Sapp. When she came to work the next day, Warford told Sapp that Warford was glad to see Sapp back, did not want Sapp to quit, and wanted to make sure Sapp received her profit sharing. E. Defamatory Statements Sapp's former coworkers consistently testified that they were informed by GEICO management that Sapp was "no longer with [GEICO]" and that no reason was given, although Rhea may have associated the separation with the review.

Download full case here.