Can employees bring a negligence claim – such as negligent hiring or negligent supervision – against their employer? Courts have often disagreed on this issue, often drawing fine distinctions between cases. A recent decision from one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the federal district that stretches as far west as Lancaster County) reinforces that no law definitively preempts a negligence suit, and that employees may bring such claims.

In Pasha Klingaman v. J&R Schugel Trucking and Jim Doe, No. 5:25-cv-00584-JLS, a former employee alleged that his supervisor engaged in a series of inappropriate and unwanted sexual acts. The crux of the lawsuit is physical, sexual harassment at work.  The employee alleged that the company knew of the supervisor’s harassing propensities but failed to take appropriate action, effectively constituting negligent supervision.

In essence, the employee alleged that the employer had a duty to protect him from the supervisor because of the company’s knowledge of the supervisor’s harassing propensities, that the company breached that duty by failing to supervise, and that this breach caused actual harm.

The employer raised two defenses, which have worked on occasion:

• 1. Preclusion by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA):
  The employer argued that the negligence claims were precluded by the PHRA because the employee was already suing for sex discrimination and harassment. In other words, the employer contended that the PHRA alone was the proper avenue for addressing workplace harassment and discrimination claims, and therefore, the negligence claim should not proceed.
  
  The court conceded that other court decisions are “somewhat conflicting,” but it allowed the employee to bring the claim. The court emphasized that nothing in the PHRA expressly bars an employee from bringing a negligence claim alongside a PHRA claim. As long as the negligence claim is framed under traditional negligence principles (such as negligent hiring, retention, or supervision) and not simply as a restatement of a discrimination or harassment claim, both actions may proceed simultaneously. The court reasoned that the PHRA and common-law negligence serve different purposes: the PHRA aims to eliminate workplace discrimination, while negligence law focuses on an employer’s failure to exercise reasonable care in protecting employees from foreseeable harm.

• 2. Preclusion by Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA):
  The employer also argued that Pennsylvania’s WCA barred the negligence claims, because the WCA generally mandates that the workers’ compensation process is the exclusive venue for almost all workplace injuries and illnesses. Otherwise, our courts’ dockets would be inundated with workers’ compensation claims. 
  
  However, the WCA includes a “third-party attack” or “personal animus” exception, which allows an employee to pursue a civil lawsuit if a third party intentionally injured him “because of reasons personal to him,” and where “the harmful conduct was not directed against him as an employee or because of his employment.” If these elements are met, then injuries or illnesses at work are not subject to the exclusive workers’ compensation forum.
  
  Again, the court acknowledged conflicting case law applying the exception to the facts at hand. Nonetheless, the court found that the employee had sufficiently argued that the harassment could fall within this exception, meaning the negligent supervision claim may proceed outside of the WCA’s exclusive venue, even though the allegations primarily occurred at work and with a supervisor.

This case does not change the law, and reasonable minds may continue to disagree under similar facts. But it underscores that Pennsylvania employers may face negligence claims in court even when the same facts also give rise to discrimination or harassment claims under the PHRA or when injuries occur in the workplace.

Key Takeaways for Employers

• Allegations of harassment, particularly those involving physical or sexual conduct, warrant immediate investigation and corrective action.
• Employers should remain alert to any indications that an employee or supervisor may pose a risk of violent or harassing behavior.
• Failure to act on such warning signs can expose employers to negligent hiring or negligent supervision claims that proceed outside the workers’ compensation process.

For guidance on conducting effective investigations, addressing employee misconduct, or mitigating risk related to harassment or workplace violence, please contact attorney Caleb P. Setlock or any member of Barley Snyder’s Employment Practice Group.