Suing an Employer for a Work Injury, by State (2026)
Each state's workers' comp exclusive-remedy rule and the exceptions that allow a lawsuit against an employer.
| State | Suing your employer |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Suing the employer: Alabama workers' compensation rights are the employee's exclusive remedy against the employer for a work injury or occupational disease, and the employer cannot be held civilly liable except as the chapter provides. The immunity also covers the comp insurer, claims administrators, safety-inspection agencies, unions and co-employees except for willful conduct, which the statute defines (intent to injure, willful removal of a manufacturer's safety guard, intoxication of a co-employee, or willful violation of a specific written safety rule after the required written notice). Ala. Code §§ 25-5-52, 25-5-53, 25-5-11(b)-(c) |
| Arizona | Suing the employer: Arizona workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for a work injury or death against the employer, a co-employee acting within the scope of employment, and the employer's comp insurer or administrator. The exception is an injury caused by willful misconduct, meaning an act done knowingly and purposely with the direct object of injuring another, that is the personal act of the employer (a partner, or an elective officer of a corporation) or co-employee and shows willful disregard of employee safety; the employee may then either claim compensation or sue for damages. Separately, an employer that fails to secure required coverage can be sued and loses certain defenses (see uninsured_employer). A.R.S. §§ 23-1022, 23-907 |
| Arkansas | Suing the employer: Arkansas workers' compensation rights are exclusive of all other rights and remedies against the employer and its principals, officers, directors, stockholders, partners and a prime contractor acting as employer. The exception in the statute is an employer that fails to secure payment of compensation as required: the injured employee (or representative in a death case) may then choose to claim compensation or to sue for damages, and the employer may not use the fellow-servant, assumption-of-risk or contributory-negligence defenses. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105 |
| California | Suing the employer: in California, when the conditions of workers' compensation are met (the worker was an employee, the employer was insured or self-insured, and the injury happened while working and was caused at least in part by the work), workers' comp is the exclusive remedy against the employer. California's official jury instructions list the exceptions under which an employee may sue: the employer's willful physical assault, the employer's fraudulent concealment of the injury that aggravates it, injury from a defective product the employer made and sold, and removal or failure to install a required guard on a power press. Co-employees can be sued only for a willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression or injury caused by their intoxication. CACI Nos. 2800-2804, 2810-2812 (2026 ed.) |
| Colorado | Suing the employer: a Colorado employer that has complied with the workers' comp act, including its insurance provisions, and its insurer are not subject to any other liability for an employee's work injury or death, and all other causes of action and remedies are abolished except as the act provides. If the employer has not complied, the employer loses the defenses of assumption of risk, fellow-servant negligence and the employee's non-willful negligence in a damages suit. C.R.S. §§ 8-41-101, 8-41-102, 8-41-104 |
| Connecticut | Suing the employer: a Connecticut employer that has secured workers' comp (by insurance or approved self-insurance) is not liable in any damages action for an employee's work injury or death, and all other rights and claims between them are abolished except those in the comp law. If the employer failed to secure coverage, the employee may sue the employer for damages (with an exception for a worker who held himself out as an independent contractor and was classified that way in good faith). A co-worker can be sued only if the wrong was willful or malicious or involved negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-284(a)-(b), 31-293a |
| Delaware | Suing the employer: in Delaware, every employer and employee must accept compensation for a work injury or death regardless of negligence and to the exclusion of all other rights and remedies (uninsured/underinsured motorist and personal injury protection benefits are not affected). An employer that keeps operating without required insurance after notice from the Department of Labor is liable to injured employees either for compensation or in a damages lawsuit, in which it cannot use the defenses of the employee's negligence, assumption of risk or a co-worker's negligence. 19 Del. C. §§ 2304, 2374(e)(3) |
| District of Columbia | Suing the employer: in the District, workers' compensation is the employee's exclusive remedy against the employer, its collective-bargaining agent, and its employees, officers, directors, agents and insurer acting within the scope of employment. The exception is an employer that fails to secure payment of compensation: the injured employee (or legal representative) may then choose to claim compensation or sue for damages, and the employer may not plead fellow-servant negligence, assumption of risk or contributory negligence. D.C. Code § 32-1504 |
| Florida | Generally no: an employer's workers' comp liability is exclusive and replaces other liability to the worker and family. Exceptions: (1) if the employer failed to secure workers' comp as required, the worker may choose comp or a lawsuit, and the employer cannot defend by blaming a co-worker's negligence, assumption of risk or the worker's comparative negligence; and (2) an intentional tort, proven by clear and convincing evidence that the employer deliberately intended to injure the worker, or knew from prior similar accidents or explicit warnings that its conduct was virtually certain to cause injury or death and deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger. Co-worker immunity does not apply to a co-worker who acts with willful and wanton disregard, unprovoked physical aggression or gross negligence. Fla. Stat. § 440.11(1) |
| Georgia | Generally no: Georgia's workers' comp rights and remedies exclude and replace all other rights and remedies against the employer for the injury or death, including common-law liability. The statute's stated exception is when the employer has expressly agreed in writing to specific additional rights and remedies; general contract terms about safety, legal compliance or liability insurance do not count. The immunity also covers co-employees and extends to businesses using temporary help or employee leasing companies when the required benefits are provided. O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a), (c) |
| Hawaii | Generally no: workers' comp rights and remedies exclude all other liability of the employer to the worker, the worker's spouse, dependents, next of kin or anyone else entitled to recover damages for the injury, whether under common law or otherwise. The statute's exception allows a civil lawsuit for sexual harassment or sexual assault and infliction of emotional distress or invasion of privacy related to it. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-5 |
| Idaho | Generally no: the employer's workers' comp liability is exclusive and replaces all other liability to the worker and family (subject to the third-party liability section). The immunity also covers the employer's surety, officers, agents and co-employees, but not where the injury or death is proximately caused by willful or unprovoked physical aggression, shown by clear and convincing evidence that the aggressor specifically intended to harm the worker or knew injury or death was substantially likely; that loss of immunity applies only to the aggressor unless the employer provoked, authorized or took part in it. Idaho Code § 72-209(1), (3) |
| Illinois | An employee covered by the Workers' Compensation Act has no right to sue the employer, its insurer, or certain related safety-service organizations for a work injury or death other than through workers' comp benefits. The Act allows a civil action against the employer when compensation would be barred by a period of repose. 820 ILCS 305/5(a), 305/1.2 |
| Indiana | The rights and remedies of the Worker's Compensation Act exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee, the employee's representatives, dependents or next of kin against the employer for a personal injury or death by accident, except remedies under IC 5-2-6.1. IC 22-3-2-6 |
| Iowa | Generally no: workers' comp rights are the exclusive and only remedies of the worker and family against the employer for a covered injury, occupational disease or hearing loss. A suit is allowed against a co-employee only if the injury was caused by the co-employee's gross negligence amounting to wanton neglect for the safety of another. Separately, an employer that failed to insure as required can be sued for damages. Iowa Code §§ 85.20, 87.21 |
| Kansas | Generally no: except as provided in the Workers Compensation Act, no employer or co-employee is liable for an injury, by accident, repetitive trauma or occupational disease, for which compensation is recoverable under the Act, and the employer is not liable to a third party for an employee's injury that the third party caused and for which the employer pays comp. The section read does not list an intentional-injury exception. K.S.A. 44-501b(d) |
| Kentucky | If an employer has workers' compensation coverage, the employer's liability under the workers' comp law replaces all other liability to the worker and family for the injury or death; the protection also covers the insurer and co-employees, officers and directors. Exceptions: a co-employee, officer or director can be sued when the injury was caused by their willful and unprovoked physical aggression; if the employer deliberately intended to injure or kill the worker, the worker or dependents may sue the employer instead of taking compensation; and if the employer failed to secure compensation, the worker may claim compensation and also sue for damages. KRS 342.690(1), (2); KRS 342.610(5) |
| Louisiana | Workers' compensation is the worker's exclusive remedy against the employer, any principal, and their officers, directors, stockholders, partners and employees, including punitive damages, unless another statute expressly creates a right to sue. The main exception is an intentional act: the employer's civil and criminal liability for an intentional act is not affected. Officers, co-employees and others are also not immune if they were not acting in the normal course and scope of their employment at the time of the injury. La. R.S. 23:1032(A), (B), (C) |
| Maine | An employer that has secured workers' compensation is exempt from civil suits by an employee for work injuries or death, including wrongful-death and Tort Claims Act suits, and the exemption extends to its employees, supervisors, officers and directors; an employer using a temporary help agency that has coverage gets the same protection. A 2023 law makes an individual employee, supervisor, officer or director (but not the employer) liable for sexual harassment, sexual assault or a related intentional tort. 39-A M.R.S. §§104, 104-A |
| Maryland | An employer's liability under Maryland's workers' compensation law is exclusive, and compensation replaces any right of action against any person, except as the law provides. Exceptions: if the employer failed to secure compensation, the worker (or personal representative) may claim compensation or sue for damages; and if the worker was injured or killed by the employer's deliberate intent to injure or kill, the worker or the surviving spouse, child or dependent may claim compensation or sue the employer for damages. Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. §9-509 |
| Massachusetts | A worker who does not give the employer written notice at the time of hire (or within 30 days after the employer becomes insured) that he or she claims the right to sue is held to have waived the right to sue the employer at common law for a compensable injury; the worker's family is likewise held to have waived claims against the employer. A worker who did reserve the right may later waive it in writing. If the employer is uninsured, the worker may sue the employer and the employer loses the usual defenses. G.L. c. 152, §§24, 66 |
| Michigan | Workers' comp benefits are the employee's exclusive remedy against the employer for a personal injury or occupational disease. The only exception is an intentional tort: the employer deliberately acted and specifically intended an injury, or had actual knowledge an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded it. Whether there was an intentional tort is decided by the court. MCL 418.131(1) |
| Minnesota | An employer's workers' compensation liability is exclusive and replaces any other liability to the worker, family or others claiming damages for the injury or death. If a private employer fails to insure or self-insure, the worker (or dependents) may choose to claim compensation or sue the employer for damages, and the employer cannot defend by blaming a co-worker, assumption of risk, or the worker's negligence unless it was willful. A co-employee is not liable unless the injury resulted from the co-employee's gross negligence or was intentionally inflicted. Minn. Stat. §§176.031, 176.061, subd. 5(e) |
| Mississippi | An employer's workers' compensation liability is exclusive and replaces all other liability to the worker and family for the injury or death. The exception in the statute is an employer that fails to secure compensation: the worker (or representative, if the worker dies) may then claim compensation or sue for damages, and the employer may not defend by blaming a co-worker, assumption of risk, or the worker's contributory negligence. Miss. Code Ann. §71-3-9 |
| Missouri | A covered employer must pay workers' compensation regardless of fault and is released from all other liability for the injury, and the worker's and family's rights under the law exclude other remedies except rights the law does not provide for. Co-employees are also released, except when the co-employee committed an affirmative negligent act that purposefully and dangerously caused or increased the risk of injury. If the employer fails to insure as required, the worker may instead sue the employer. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§287.120.1, .2, 287.280.1 |
| Montana | Generally no: for covered employment, workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy and an insured employer is not otherwise liable for an employee's injury or death. Exceptions: an uninsured employer can be sued under the uninsured-employer provisions, and a worker who is intentionally injured by a deliberate act of the employer or a co-worker may sue that person in addition to receiving benefits. Intentional injury means an act specifically and actually intended to injure the worker with actual knowledge that injury is certain, proven by clear and convincing evidence; the employer is not vicariously liable for a co-worker's intentional act. Mont. Code Ann. §§ 39-71-411, 39-71-413 |
| Nebraska | Generally no. Coming under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act is a surrender of any other method or amount of compensation, binding the worker and the employer, and the exemption extends to the employer's insurer and to co-employees, officers and directors. Filing a claim with, or accepting payment from, the employer or its insurer releases the employer from claims at law for the injury. Exceptions in the statutes: a co-employee, officer or director can be sued when the injury was caused by their willful and unprovoked physical aggression, and an employer that fails to carry required insurance must respond in damages to the injured worker. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-111, 48-148, 48-145(3) |
| Nevada | Generally no. The rights and remedies of NRS chapters 616A to 616D for a work injury are exclusive of all other rights and remedies of the employee and family, at common law or otherwise, except as those chapters provide, and the compensation terms are compulsory for covered employers and employees. One statutory exception: if the employer failed to provide and secure compensation, the injured employee may sue the employer for damages as if those chapters did not apply. NRS 616A.020, 616B.636 |
| New Hampshire | Generally no. An employee of an employer covered by the workers' compensation law is conclusively presumed to have accepted it and waived all other rights of action against the employer, its insurance carrier or self-insurance group, and, except for intentional torts, against co-workers, officers and agents acting for the employer. A spouse or others have no direct action against them either. Exception: an employee of an employer that failed to secure compensation as required may instead pursue any available remedy at law, free of these waivers and immunities. RSA 281-A:8, 281-A:7, IV |
| New Jersey | Generally no. Coming under the workers' compensation article is a surrender by employer and employee of any other method, form or amount of compensation, binding the employee and the employee's family. If an injury or death is compensable, no person in the same employ (including the employer) is liable at common law or otherwise, except for an 'intentional wrong.' N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 |
| New Mexico | Generally no. When an employer is subject to the Workers' Compensation Act and has complied with it, including insurance, both employer and worker surrender all other causes of action for the worker's injury or death, and no suit outside the Act may be brought against the employer or its insurer; complying employers and their employees, including managers and supervisors, are not subject to any other liability. The exclusive remedy applies only when the employer has complied with the insurance requirements; in a negligence suit against an employer, the employer cannot use the defenses of assumption of risk, a co-worker's negligence, or the worker's own non-willful negligence. NMSA 1978, §§ 52-1-6(C)-(E), 52-1-8, 52-1-9 |
| New York | Generally no: an employer's workers' compensation liability is exclusive and in place of any other liability to the employee and family, and compensation is also the exclusive remedy for injuries caused by a co-worker's negligence. Exception: if the employer failed to secure compensation, the employee may choose either to claim workers' compensation or to sue the employer in court, where the employer cannot rely on the worker's contributory negligence, a fellow servant's negligence or assumption of risk. A third party who is sued (for example under the scaffold law) cannot obtain contribution or indemnity from the employer unless the worker suffered a statutory 'grave injury' (such as death, amputation or permanent total loss of use of a limb, paralysis, total blindness or deafness, or certain permanent brain injuries) or the employer agreed in writing. N.Y. Workers' Comp. Law §§ 11, 29(6) |
| North Carolina | Generally no. If the employee and employer are subject to and have complied with the Workers' Compensation Act, the compensation it provides excludes all other rights and remedies of the employee and the employee's family against the employer for the injury or death. Exception: an employer that fails to secure required coverage is liable to the injured employee, at the employee's election, either for compensation under the Act or in a lawsuit at law. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 97-10.1, 97-94 |
| North Dakota | Generally no. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy: a worker of an employer that paid premiums to the state fund cannot sue the employer or its employees and must look solely to the fund. The only exceptions in the statute are an injury caused by the employer's intentional act done with the conscious purpose of inflicting the injury, and claims against an uninsured employer. A client company and staffing service that secured coverage share the same immunity. N.D. Cent. Code §§ 65-01-01, 65-01-01.1, 65-01-08 |
| Ohio | Generally no. An employer that complies with the workers' comp coverage requirement (pays into the state fund or is self-insured) is not liable in damages for workplace injuries, occupational diseases or deaths, whether or not they are compensable. The statutory exception is an employer intentional tort: the worker must prove the employer acted with intent to injure or believed injury was substantially certain, meaning deliberate intent; deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard or deliberate misrepresentation of a toxic substance creates a rebuttable presumption of intent. An employer that has not complied with the coverage requirement loses the protection. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4123.74, 2745.01, 4123.77 |
| Oklahoma | Generally no. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against the employer and its officers, employees and owners, and a general contractor that provides coverage to a subcontractor; this immunity applies even if the worker is denied compensation. Exceptions: (1) the employer failed to secure workers' comp coverage; and (2) an intentional tort, which exists only when the employer acted with willful, deliberate, specific intent to cause the injury (knowing injury was substantially certain is not enough). In those cases the worker may proceed either before the Workers' Compensation Commission or in district court, but not both. 85A Okla. Stat. § 5 |
| Oregon | Generally no. An employer that provides workers' comp coverage has exclusive liability: workers' comp replaces all other remedies against the employer, including claims under the Employer Liability Law. The protection extends to the insurer, claims administrator and the employer's officers, employees and similar persons, except for their willful and unprovoked aggression, when not engaged in a common enterprise with the worker, failure to comply with a posted safety notice, or negligence outside the capacity that gives them immunity. If the employer deliberately intended to produce the injury or death, the worker may collect benefits and also sue the employer for damages above the benefits. ORS 656.018, 656.156 |
| Pennsylvania | Generally no. The employer's liability under the Workers' Compensation Act is exclusive and in place of any other liability to the worker, spouse, parents, dependents or anyone else entitled to damages for a work injury or occupational disease. The statute's main exception is an employer that fails to insure or self-insure: then the worker may either claim under the Act or sue the employer for damages at law. Other exceptions recognized by Pennsylvania courts were not reviewed. Workers' Compensation Act §§ 303(a), 305(d) |
| Rhode Island | Generally no. The right to workers' compensation is in place of all other rights and remedies for the injury against the employer and its directors, officers, agents and employees. The statute's exceptions are for employers that failed to secure workers' comp coverage (the worker may choose compensation or a damages suit) and the related penalty provision making corporate officers and similar persons personally liable when coverage was knowingly not secured. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 28-29-20, 28-36-10, 28-36-15 |
| South Carolina | Generally no. When employer and employee are both under the Workers' Compensation Act, the worker's rights under the Act exclude all other rights and remedies against the employer for the injury or death. The statute does not bar claims against a subcontractor of the employer (or its employees) that caused the injury. An employer that fails to secure coverage loses this protection: the worker may sue it at law (see uninsured employer). Court-made exceptions, if any, were not reviewed. S.C. Code §§ 42-1-540, 42-5-40 |
| South Dakota | Generally no. Workers' compensation rights exclude all other rights and remedies of the worker and family against the employer and its employees, partners, officers and directors for a work injury or death. The statutory exception is rights and remedies arising from an intentional tort. An employer that failed to secure coverage is treated as having elected not to operate under the law, and the worker may sue it (see uninsured employer). SDCL 62-3-2, 62-5-7 |
| Tennessee | Generally no: workers' compensation rights and remedies exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee, personal representative, dependents or next of kin against the employer, at common law or otherwise. If an employer fails to secure the required workers' comp coverage, the employee may sue, and the employer cannot defend on the grounds of the employee's negligence, a co-worker's negligence, or assumption of risk. The rule does not bar a third party's indemnity claim against an employer that expressly agreed to indemnify it. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-108(a)-(c) |
| Texas | For an employee whose employer carries workers' compensation insurance, workers' comp benefits are the exclusive remedy against the employer and its agents or employees for a work-related injury or death. The exception in the statute: the surviving spouse or children (heirs of the body) of an employee whose death was caused by the employer's intentional act or omission or gross negligence may recover exemplary (punitive) damages. Texas employers may choose not to carry coverage; see uninsured_employer. Tex. Lab. Code § 408.001 |
| Utah | Generally no. The right to workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against the employer and against its officers, agents and employees, in place of any other civil liability, and no lawsuit may be maintained against them for a work injury or death. The exclusive remedy also covers both the client and a professional employer organization, and a client company using workers from a temporary staffing company that carries coverage. An employer that fails to secure coverage loses this protection (see uninsured_employer). Utah Code §§ 34A-2-105, 34A-2-207(1) |
| Vermont | Generally no. Workers' compensation rights and remedies exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee, personal representatives, dependents or next of kin against the employer, at common law or otherwise. The statute's exceptions are the worker's right to sue an employer that failed to carry required insurance (21 V.S.A. § 618(b)) and claims against third parties under § 624. 21 V.S.A. § 622 |
| Virginia | Generally no. When the employer and employee are under the Workers' Compensation Act, the worker's rights and remedies under the Act exclude all other rights and remedies of the worker and family, at common law or otherwise. An employer that fails to carry required insurance can be sued (see uninsured_employer). Owners and contractors that are 'statutory employers' of a subcontractor's worker are also liable for comp benefits. Va. Code §§ 65.2-307(A), 65.2-302, 65.2-805(A) |
| Washington | Generally no. Washington's industrial insurance law withdrew workplace injuries from private lawsuits and abolished civil actions and court jurisdiction over them, providing workers' comp benefits to the exclusion of every other remedy except as the law provides. If the injury results from the employer's deliberate intention to produce the injury, the worker may take benefits and also sue the employer for damages beyond the benefits paid or payable. Rev. Code Wash. §§ 51.04.010, 51.24.020 |
| West Virginia | Generally no. An employer that keeps required workers' comp coverage (or is approved to pay directly) and is not in default is not liable in damages at common law or by statute for an employee's injury or death, however it occurs. The immunity is lost only if the employer acted with 'deliberate intention', proved either by a consciously formed specific intent to injure (not negligence or even willful, wanton or reckless conduct) or by all the facts in a statutory list beginning with a specific unsafe working condition; the worker may then sue for damages beyond comp benefits. An employer that fails to carry required coverage can also be sued (see uninsured_employer). W. Va. Code §§ 23-2-6, 23-4-2(c), (d)(2) |
| Wisconsin | Generally no. Where the conditions for workers' comp liability exist, the right to recover workers' comp is the exclusive remedy against the employer, any other employee of the same employer, and the workers' comp insurer. The statute still allows a suit against a co-employee for an assault intended to cause bodily harm, for negligent operation of a motor vehicle not owned or leased by the employer, or where a governmental unit would pay the judgment under a collective bargaining agreement or ordinance. Wis. Stat. § 102.03(2) |
| Wyoming | Generally no. For employees in covered (extrahazardous) employment, workers' comp rights and remedies replace all other rights and remedies against a contributing employer and co-employees acting within the scope of employment, unless a co-employee intentionally acted to cause physical harm. The exclusive remedy does not apply if, at the time of injury, the employer had not qualified for coverage or had not paid the required premium on the worker's earnings within 30 days of the due date. Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-104(a), (c) |
General legal information, not legal advice. Laws change and local rules can differ; check the linked official source or talk to a lawyer about your situation.