When You Cannot Sue Your Employer

Peachstate Concessionaires, Inc. v. Bryant

Georgia Court of Appeals – December 22, 2025

Facts (Plain English)

Mekiah Bryant worked as a cashier at a Dunkin' Donuts owned by Peachstate Concessionaires, Inc. One evening, Bryant told a customer in the drive-through that certain menu items were unavailable. The customer, Marquavis Goolsby, left but returned about ten minutes later, came inside the store, and complained that Bryant had been rude. Bryant told him the manager was unavailable and asked him to wait. The argument escalated. According to Bryant, Goolsby put his fingers in her face. Bryant stepped around the counter, told him not to do that, and said, "I don't play like that." Goolsby then pulled out a kitchen knife and stabbed Bryant in the arm. Bryant later sued Peachstate for:

• Premises liability / negligent security
• Negligent infliction of emotional distress
• Attorney fees

Peachstate moved for summary judgment, arguing that all claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, OCGA § 34-9-11(a). The trial court:

• Granted summary judgment on emotional distress and attorney fees
• Denied summary judgment on premises liability, finding the injury did not necessarily arise out of Bryant's employment Peachstate appealed.

Holding

The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed. The Court held that Bryant's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, and therefore her tort claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. Because the assault was not personal to Bryant and stemmed directly from her job duties as a cashier interacting with a customer, workers' compensation was her sole remedy. The trial court was directed to enter summary judgment in favor of Peachstate on the premises liability claim.

Key Legal Takeaways

• A third-party assault at work can be compensable under workers' compensation if it is not personal and has a causal connection to the employee's job duties.
• The fact that an assault is criminal or violent does not remove it from workers' compensation coverage.
• Customer-employee disputes that escalate into violence can still be considered risks "peculiarly related" to the employment.
• If workers' compensation applies, it bars negligence and premises liability claims against the employer.

Questions & Comments

• This opinion reinforces how broad Georgia's Workers' Compensation Act can be when it comes to workplace violence.
• The trial court attempted to draw a line between "customer service disputes" and "criminal assault," but the Court of Appeals rejected that distinction as one of degree, not kind.
• From an employer's perspective, this case is a reminder that workers' comp protection can be a powerful shield — even in extreme factual scenarios.
• From an employee's perspective, it highlights the harsh reality that even serious, traumatic injuries caused by third-party criminals may limit recovery to workers' comp benefits only.