Huanyu Sun

Closed Memorandum 1
Officer Peterson has a viable workers compensation claim against the
Berkeley Police Department. Officer Peterson has a subjective belief that his
participation in the 10K race was expected by the employer and that belief is
objectively reasonable. Therefore, the injury he sustained in the 10K race indeed
arose out of and in the course of employment.
For us to successfully sued the Berkeley Police Department for liability for
the workers compensation, we must prove these activities are a reasonable
expectancy of, or are expressly or impliedly required by, the employment.
California Labor Code section 3600, subdivision (a)(9).

Its obvious that the race

was not expressly or impliedly required by the employment. Therefore, we must

prove that Officer Petersons participation in the race is a reasonable expectancy of
the employment.
The test of reasonable expectancy of employment consists of two
elements: (1) whether the employee subjectively believe his or her participation in
an activity is expected by the employer, and (2) whether that belief is objectively
reasonable. There is no dispute that Officer Peterson subjectively believe that his
participation in the 10K race was expected of him as part of his employment with
the police force. He confirmed that was what he believed and said that was why he

registered for the race in our office yesterday. Therefore, this analysis focuses on
whether Officer Petersons belief is objectively reasonable.
In Ezzy v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board, 194 Cal. Rptr. 90 (Ct.
App. 1983), the court relies upon three factors of job-related pressure to
participate, employer involvement and benefit to employer to determine the
objective reasonableness of plaintiffs subjective belief that participation in an
activity is an expectancy of employment. First of all, in Ezzy, the plaintiff, as a
part-time law clerk in her second year of law school, was more than usually
vulnerable to pressure to join the law firms softball team. When she was urged to
play by the partner, who was also the team coach, it was reasonable for her to feel
that she was expected to participate. Besides, there was relatively more pressure on
female employees to participate since the leagues requirement that four women
must be present on the field at all times. Moreover, the law firm paid for all
equipment, t-shirts and post-game refreshments. It also sponsored an awards
banquet to which team members and other employees were invited. Furthermore, a
substantial benefit to the firm was generated by participation in the softball team
by virtue of improved office cooperation, spirit, morale and camaraderie. Based on
those facts, the court reasoned that Ms. Ezzys subjective belief was objectively
reasonable, and, therefore, concluded that her injury arose out of and in the course
of her employment. Additionally, the court found it significant that the law firm

had neither posted nor read to its employees the contents of Administrative
Directors Rule 9883. It makes any action by the firm which tends to encourage
participation in softball game appear more coercive effect.
Like Ezzy, Officer Peterson was also under job-related pressure to
participate the 10K race. When he was prompted to the special emergency response
team, his immediate supervisor told him that the physical requirement for the team
were more demanding than those for regular patrol officers, and that off-duty
exercise was typically necessary in order to pass the fitness test, which is a
requisite for remaining a member of the team. One of the requirements of the test
is

that

Officer Peterson must run 2 miles in less that 15 minutes. To stay in shape for the
test, he said he runs around a track several times weekly and participates in local
10K races. Its reasonable to say that both Ms. Ezzys and Officer Petersons
participation are out of job-related pressure.
However, the Berkeley Police Departments involvement in the 10K race is
not as deep as the law firms in Ezzy. Although the Berkeley Police Department
provided officers running in the race with t-shirts identifying them as members of
the department, it didnt contribute any other financial support. The counsel of the
Berkeley Police Department may argue that the officers paid their own fees to
enter the race, and worked on their own to obtain sponsorship from friends and

families. Meanwhile, the race was scheduled for Petersons day off and he had to
drive himself to the race. All of mentioned above indicates the detachment of the
Berkeley Police Department, more or less. Nonetheless, there is a significant
difference between 10K race and softball game in essence. The former doesnt
need much employers involvement, especially investment in equipment.
Ordinarily, everyone is capable to get enough resource to participate in a 10K race.
Like Ezzy, there are obviously some benefits to the employer. Officers
participation in the race facilities the community-building and helps the Berkeley
Police Department to show its support for victims of domestic violence. Moreover,
groups of officers from other area police departments also enter the race. For the
previous three years, the Albany police officers won the team competition, with
Berkeley coming in second each time. Obviously, it would bring enormous
satisfaction to the entire department once they won the race, which is implied by
the fact that after Officer Peterson signed up for the race, his supervisor phoned
him to wish him luck and to urge him to finally beat Albany after all these years.
Furthermore, the Berkeley Police Department did post Administrative
Directors Rule 9883 in a conspicuous place. The counsel may claim liability
exemption by resorting to that. However, the statutory directive is intended to
inform an employee of the jeopardy of noncoverage by workers compensation
insurance when voluntarily involved in athletic events. According to Petersons

statement, although the notice was posted on the bulletin board in the lunchroom,
he had never noticed it before. Thus, we need more information related to specific
circumstances under which the notice is posted to determine whether it was in fact
accessible to the officers.
In conclusion, Officer Peterson has a viable workers compensation claim
against the Berkeley Police Department. He has a subjective belief that his
participation in the race is expected by the employer and that belief is objectively
reasonable. Accordingly, the court would likely hold that Petersons ankle injury
arose out of and in the course of his employment with the Berkeley Police
Department.