The Washington Supreme Court has clarified that the state’s “traveling employee” doctrine can apply to occupational diseases, potentially expanding workers’ compensation coverage for employees who fall ill while traveling for work. The ruling stems from the case Azorit-Wortham v. Department of Labor & Industries of Washington and Alaska Airlines, which involves Alaska Airlines flight attendant Lisa Azorit-Wortham.
Ms. Azorit-Wortham contracted COVID-19 in March 2020 while performing her duties during work-related travel. She initially filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was denied by the Department of Labor & Industries. A jury later ruled in her favor, concluding that the traveling employee doctrine—which traditionally covers injuries occurring during work travel—also applies to infectious diseases. However, the Court of Appeals overturned that decision, holding that occupational diseases are outside the doctrine’s scope.
The key legal question was whether employees who contract communicable diseases during work travel qualify for coverage under the doctrine, which generally compensates for injuries or illnesses that “arise naturally and proximately out of employment.” Alaska Airlines argued that extending coverage to diseases would effectively make compensation automatic for traveling employees, removing the need to prove specific work-related exposure. The airline claimed that risks of viral infection while traveling are indistinguishable from everyday exposures.
The Washington Supreme Court disagreed. It clarified that the doctrine does not redefine what constitutes an occupational disease but rather determines the scope and timing of coverage for traveling employees. In its ruling, the court stated, “If a worker contracts a disease that meets the statutory definition while travelling for work, the Act provides coverage.” The decision emphasizes that employees must still demonstrate that the disease arose naturally and proximately from their employment.
Importantly, the Supreme Court rejected the appellate court’s reasoning that travel-related activities—such as staying in hotels, dining at restaurants, or using public transportation—are “conditions of everyday life” and therefore excluded from occupational disease coverage. The justices noted that these activities are often unavoidable parts of a traveling employee’s work, particularly in industries such as aviation.
While the ruling does not automatically approve Ms. Azorit-Wortham’s COVID-19 claim, it confirms that traveling employees may be eligible for compensation for both injuries and occupational diseases incurred during work-related travel. The case will return to the Court of Appeals to determine whether sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that her infection “arose naturally and proximately” from her employment.
This landmark decision could have far-reaching implications for workers in industries where travel is essential, signaling that occupational disease coverage can extend beyond the workplace itself to include work-related travel, provided the illness arises directly from job duties. It reinforces the legal principle that the nature of employment, rather than the location, can establish eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits.