A legal analyst disputes the notion that U.S. employers must inform employees about terrorism risks when sending them abroad, arguing that such an obligation lacks legal foundation. The assertion that companies could face liability for omitting these warnings stems from a misinterpretation of duty-of-care obligations, the analyst states in recent findings.
No federal or state law imposes a legal duty on employers to warn traveling employees. no federal or state court has ever held that any employer has any duty of care to U.S. employees traveling on business abroad. Workers’ compensation statutes-enforced in every state except Texas-further restrict an employee’s ability to sue. Injured workers get guaranteed benefits without proving the employer was at fault, and in exchange employers are immune from negligence suits by employees. Coverage includes medical expenses, partial wage replacement, disability payments, or death benefits, though it excludes compensation for pain and suffering or punitive damages.
State laws generally follow employees on temporary business trips, including trips abroad. An employee harmed by terrorism while on a work trip would typically rely on workers’ compensation rather than pursuing a negligence claim. However, my most recent research shows that there are a few limited exceptions.
- Workers assigned to long-term foreign postings or hired abroad may fall outside their home state’s workers’ compensation system, as demonstrated in Khan v. Parsons Global Services (2005), where a kidnapped employee’s negligence lawsuit proceeded.
- In certain states, injuries from random attacks might not be classified as work-related, potentially allowing lawsuits.
- Employees of foreign subsidiaries could be subject to local laws, such as U.K. rulings that hold employers accountable for failing to take reasonable precautions for traveling staff.
- Texas employers, which may opt out of workers’ compensation, have no legal duty to warn about widely known hazards, according to the state’s highest court.
I am not aware of any decision holding an employer liable for failing to warn about terrorism abroad, Workers’ compensation remains the primary remedy for injured employees, and the analyst advises against overstating the legal significance of corporate duty-of-care policies.
Employees of a foreign subsidiary may be governed by that country’s law. U.K. courts, for example, have held employers liable for failing to take reasonable care of employees traveling abroad. However, the analyst’s review of U.S. case law finds no precedent supporting claims that employers must actively warn of terrorism risks when deploying employees internationally.