MANNING V. GRIMSLEY
643 F.2d 30 (1st Cir. 1981)


PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner union challenged the decision of respondent Secretary of Labor, which denied petitioner's application for a certification of group eligibility to apply for benefits under the trade adjustment assistance provisions of the Trade Act of 1974.

FACTS: The Orioles and Red Sox were playing at Fenway. Grimsley (D) was warming up as a pitcher for Baltimore. While D was warming up, the spectators were constantly heckling him. At the end of the third inning, after his catcher left his position, D was walking over to the bench. D faced the bleachers and wound up as though to pitch in the direction of the plate and the ball left his hand at a 90-degree angle from the pitcher's mound directly toward the hecklers. The ball passed through the wire mesh and hit a heckler. The judge entered a verdict for Ds on the count of battery and the jury returned a verdict for D on the negligence count. This appeal resulted.

ISSUE:Is an employer liable for a battery committed by its employee in response to conduct interfering with his employment duties?

RULE:To recover from an employer for an assault committed by its employee, the plaintiff must show that the employee's assault was in response to the plaintiff's conduct which was presently interfering with the employee's ability to perform his duties successfully.

HOLDING:The Court of Appeals, Coffin, Chief Judge, held that substantial evidence supported determination of the Secretary of Labor that increased imports had not contributed importantly to closing of company foundry and that laid off foundry workers were thus not eligible for benefits. Affirmed.

ANALYSIS: Respondent Secretary of Labor denied petitioner union's application for certification of group eligibility to apply for benefits under the trade adjustment assistance provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C.S. §§ 2271-2322, after respondent determined that increased imports had not contributed importantly to the closing of a foundry. The court affirmed respondent's decision, holding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court held that in review of the denial of certification, a court must accept the Secretary of Labor's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. The court further held that it could not say that respondent shirked his duty to investigate by accepting as credible an authoritative company response to an official query given under a guarantee of confidentiality. The court held that it was for respondent to decide, under the circumstances, whether to credit the company statement without further checking.