Is intentional or egregious employer conduct within the scope of workers' compensation?

In the first place, the proposition that intentional or egregious employer conduct is necessarily outside the scope of the workers' compensation scheme is erroneous. This was the precise problem which we addressed in Cole, supra, 43 Cal.3d 148, where we noted that many intentional acts by an employer could be expected to cause emotional distress and yet do not lie outside the proper scope of workers' compensation. Even intentional "misconduct" may constitute a "normal part of the employment relationship." (Id. at p. 160, 233 Cal.Rptr. 308, 729 P.2d 743.) As we subsequently observed in Shoemaker v. Myers, supra, 52 Cal.3d 1, 276 Cal.Rptr. 303, 801 P.2d 1054, "Even if such conduct may be characterized as intentional, unfair or outrageous, it is nevertheless covered by the workers' compensation exclusivity provisions." (Id. at p. 25, 276 Cal.Rptr. 303, 801 P.2d 1054.)