Out of Bounds for Workers Compensation: Frito-Lay Employee’s Injury Denied Coverage

March 6, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – A Frito-Lay forklift driver who tore his Achilles tendon during a company basketball game won’t receive workers’ compensation benefits, as ruled by the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission (VWCC). The commission determined that his voluntary participation in an off-duty, off-premises event does not meet the legal requirements for coverage.

Why the Workers’ Comp Claim Was Denied

Under Virginia workers’ compensation law, injuries are only compensable if they occur “in the course of employment.” The law excludes injuries from voluntary, employer-sponsored recreational activities that are not part of an employee’s job duties.

The VWCC applies three key principles to determine if a recreational activity qualifies as work-related:

The event takes place on company premises during a work break or as part of regular duties.
The employer requires or strongly encourages participation, making it an extension of employment.
The company benefits significantly from the event beyond just boosting morale.

In this case, the basketball tournament failed to meet these conditions.

Frito-Lay’s Role in the Tournament

Frito-Lay covered the entry fees for two teams and posted sign-up sheets at its warehouse. Employees with basketball experience were chosen to participate. While some players felt a sense of pride, the company did not require participation, sponsor the event, or offer compensation.

Additionally:

The tournament was not held on company premises.
Players provided their own transportation and received no reimbursement.
The claimant used paid vacation days to compete.
Frito-Lay did not supply jerseys, equipment, or food.

Employee Morale and Public Relations: Not Enough for Workers Compensation

The commission also ruled that the event did not significantly impact employee morale. Out of 500 employees, only a few participated. Furthermore, the primary beneficiary of the tournament was a local free clinic, not the company itself.

Although positive public relations may have been a factor, it did not make the tournament a core part of employment. Since participation was completely voluntary, the claim fell out of bounds for workers’ compensation.

Source: Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission

New Update: Virginia Workers’ Compensation Rulings Reinforce Limits on Recreational Injury Coverage

The Virginia workers’ compensation dispute involving Frito-Lay employee Devonte Jones continues to illustrate the legal limitations surrounding injuries sustained during voluntary, employer-associated recreational activities. The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission upheld the denial of benefits after Jones, a forklift driver, injured his Achilles tendon while participating in a basketball tournament involving employees from his workplace.

Although Frito-Lay paid the entry fees for two teams and allowed employees to register through sign-up sheets posted at its warehouse, the Commission determined that the activity was not sufficiently connected to Jones’s employment to qualify for workers’ compensation coverage. The decision emphasized that the tournament occurred away from company premises, participation was voluntary, and employees were not compensated for playing. Jones also used paid vacation time to attend the event, arranged his own transportation, and received no reimbursement for travel expenses.

These circumstances supported the Commission’s conclusion that the injury did not arise in the course of employment. As of October 2026, the publicly available materials reviewed do not establish a subsequent appellate ruling reversing the Commission’s decision or awarding benefits to Jones. The original denial therefore remains the latest verified outcome identified in the available reporting.

Virginia law provides a specific framework for evaluating injuries associated with employer-sponsored recreational activities. Under Virginia Code Section 65.2-101, a compensable injury generally must arise out of and occur in the course of employment. The statute expressly excludes injuries resulting from an employee’s voluntary participation in employer-sponsored off-duty recreational activities that are not part of the employee’s job duties. However, the legal analysis does not end with determining whether an activity was recreational.

The Commission also considers whether the activity occurred on company premises as a regular incident of employment, whether participation was expressly or implicitly required, and whether the employer received a substantial direct business benefit beyond ordinary improvements in employee morale. These considerations help distinguish activities that are genuinely personal from those sufficiently connected to employment responsibilities.

In the Frito-Lay case, the employer’s payment of tournament entry fees and use of company sign-up sheets did not establish that employees were required to participate or that the tournament served a substantial business purpose. The Commission also considered evidence that only a small portion of the company’s approximately 500 employees participated. Although the tournament could have generated favorable publicity, the primary beneficiary was a local community free clinic rather than Frito-Lay.

A separate Virginia workers’ compensation ruling reported in March 2025 provides additional context for recreational injury disputes. In that case, an employee of S&P Global sought benefits after alleging that he injured his knee while participating in a company-sponsored event at a Topgolf entertainment facility. The employee claimed that his knee buckled during a golf swing, causing pain and limiting his ability to participate.

However, the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission upheld the denial of benefits after examining conflicting testimony about when the injury occurred, whether it was reported to a supervisor, and why medical treatment was delayed. The employee maintained that he had informed his supervisor about the injury, but the supervisor disputed that account. The Commission concluded that the evidence did not establish a compensable workplace accident.

Unlike the Frito-Lay basketball dispute, which focused primarily on the employment connection of a voluntary recreational event, the Topgolf case also involved significant questions concerning proof of injury and the credibility of the employee’s account. The two decisions demonstrate that workers’ compensation claims arising from recreational activities may fail for different legal and evidentiary reasons.

The distinction is important because an employer’s involvement in a recreational event does not automatically establish workers’ compensation coverage. Employers may pay registration fees, organize teams, encourage participation, or promote employee wellness without necessarily transforming an optional activity into a required employment duty.

Conversely, recreational activities may present different coverage questions when participation is mandatory, employees are expected to attend as part of their work responsibilities, or the event provides a substantial direct benefit to the employer. The location of an event, the timing of participation, the employer’s degree of control, and the relationship between the activity and regular job duties can all influence the legal analysis. These factors must be evaluated together rather than treated as isolated requirements.

For employers, the Frito-Lay decision reinforces the importance of clearly communicating whether recreational events are voluntary and whether participation is connected to employment duties. Written policies, event announcements, compensation arrangements, and supervisory expectations can become relevant evidence when an injury leads to a disputed claim.

Employers should also recognize that the absence of workers’ compensation coverage does not eliminate the need to consider workplace safety, risk management, or other potential legal obligations associated with company activities. For employees, the ruling demonstrates why participation requirements, employer instructions, and the circumstances surrounding an injury should be documented carefully. Prompt reporting and appropriate medical evaluation may also become important if the worker later seeks compensation benefits.

The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission maintains an administrative and judicial process through which injured employees may challenge denied claims. A deputy commissioner’s decision may be reviewed by the full Commission, and qualifying disputes may proceed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia. These procedures allow parties to challenge factual findings or legal interpretations within applicable filing deadlines. However, the availability of an appeal does not establish that a particular claim has been appealed or that an earlier decision has been overturned.

As of October 2026, the verified outcome in the Frito-Lay recreational injury dispute remains the Commission’s denial of workers’ compensation benefits. The related S&P Global Topgolf decision provides additional context showing how Virginia evaluates injuries occurring during employer-associated recreational activities.

Together, the rulings reinforce that workers’ compensation coverage depends on the relationship between the activity and employment, the applicable statutory exclusions, and the evidence supporting the claimed injury. Employees and employers should therefore avoid assuming that every company-associated recreational activity is covered or that every voluntary event is automatically excluded without considering the specific facts.

For additional information, review Virginia Code Section 65.2-101, which defines compensable injuries and addresses voluntary employer-sponsored recreational activities:.

FAQs: Workers Compensation Recreational Activities and Injury Coverage

Why was the Frito-Lay employee’s injury denied workers’ compensation?

The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission denied the claim because the injury occurred during a voluntary basketball activity that was classified as recreational rather than employment-related. The event was not a required part of the employee’s job duties, was not tied to work assignments or performance expectations, and participation was optional. The Commission also found no sufficient employer control or direct business benefit beyond general morale improvement, which is typically not enough to bring an activity within the scope of employment. As a result, the injury was excluded from coverage under workers compensation recreational activities.

What qualifies as a compensable injury under Virginia workers’ comp law?

Injuries are compensable only if they arise in the course of employment. Voluntary workers compensation recreational activities, such as off-duty sports, typically do not qualify.

Does employer sponsorship change how recreational injuries are treated?

Employer sponsorship can influence rulings. However, unless the event is required, held on company premises, or part of job duties, workers compensation recreational activities are not covered.

Can morale-boosting events count as work-related under workers’ compensation?

Not usually. Even if events improve morale, they must meet strict legal criteria to fall under workers compensation recreational activities.

Stay ahead on workers’ compensation rulings, employer liability, and employee rights. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com today for weekly case updates and expert analysis.