Colorado’s second-highest court last month rejected Safeway’s attempt to deny workers’ compensation benefits to an 82-year-old employee who injured herself while trying to stop a shoplifter.

While she was cleaning the entryway of a store, Janice Sewald observed a customer leaving without paying and she reached for his cart. She was pulled to the floor and required hospitalization for hip surgery. Sewald never returned to work.

Safeway challenged her application for workers’ compensation benefits, contending its policies prohibited employees from interacting with shoplifters. Therefore, Sewald was not acting “in the course of” her employment under Colorado law and could be denied compensation.

An administrative law judge disagreed, noting Safeway’s policies simply regulated employees’ conduct in dealing with shoplifters, and did not cease the employer-employee relationship altogether. While the judge found Sewald was eligible for benefits, he reduced her non-medical compensation by half because Sewald disobeyed a company rule.

Case: Safeway v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Decided: November 16, 2023

Jurisdiction: Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: W. Eric Kuhn (author)

Rebecca R. Freyre

David H. Yun

The Industrial Claim Appeals Office upheld that decision, additionally finding that Safeway’s training actually did direct employees to approach alleged shoplifters, just not to grab their carts.

Finally, Safeway turned to the Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel again rejected the effort to deny Sewald benefits.

“Here, Safeway did not instruct Sewald to discontinue all her work duties for the day if she encountered a shoplifter,” wrote Judge W. Eric Kuhn in the Nov. 15 opinion. “(B)eing aware of and encouraged to react to suspected shoplifting was part of Sewald’s employment, and the directive against grabbing the shopping cart was related to the method for stopping shoplifter activity.”

The panel upheld Sewald’s reduced compensation award.

The case is Safeway, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office et al.