Setting the Scene
Effective workplace oversight isn’t just an HR ideal — it’s a company’s first line of defense against risk, liability, and reputational harm. When managers enforce policies consistently and act on warning signs, they protect both people and the organization. When they don’t, even routine lapses can turn catastrophic.
Right now, in Orange County, California, the Los Angeles Angels are learning that lesson in real time. The team faces a high-profile wrongful death trial arising from the 2019 overdose of pitcher Tyler Skaggs — a case that lays bare how unreported concerns, inconsistent enforcement, and managerial lapses can evolve into multi-million-dollar exposure.
For employers and those who monitor employment law, the trial is more than a headline; it’s a reminder that oversight isn’t paperwork — it’s practice, vigilance, and follow-through — and when it fails, the costs can be staggering.
The Case Behind the Headlines
Tyler Skaggs was a left-handed pitcher for the Los Angeles Angels, a young starter from California whose career was still taking shape when he died at 27. On July 1, 2019, while on a team road trip in Texas, Skaggs was found unresponsive in his hotel room. The coroner ruled his death an accident: a lethal mix of alcohol, oxycodone, and fentanyl caused him to choke on his own vomit.
In 2022, a federal jury convicted former Angels communications director Eric Kay of distributing the fentanyl-laced pills that killed him. The current civil trial — filed by Skaggs’s widow and parents — now asks a different question: what did the organization know, and what should it have done?
What the Civil Case Is About
The wrongful-death suits accuse the Los Angeles Angels of negligence and gross negligence, highlighting the importance of workplace compliance and managerial responsibility in employment law. The family claims the team failed to supervise or discipline Kay — a mid-level employee with known drug problems — and ignored warning signs that he was supplying opioids to players.
The case, now unfolding in California, has included testimony that raises questions about the team’s internal oversight:
- Unheeded Warnings: Kay’s ex-wife testified that she alerted team officials to her husband’s drug use and that he had pills intended for Skaggs.
- Managerial Inaction: Former Angels executive Tim Mead admitted he suspected Kay had a drug problem, even searching his desk, yet never reported concerns to HR as required by policy.
- Visible Red Flags: Star outfielder Mike Trout testified that he noticed Kay behaving “wired” and sweating — classic signs of stimulant use — and said he would have helped if Kay had sought treatment.
While no single act caused Skaggs’s death, together these accounts sketch an organization that saw smoke but never pulled the alarm.
The Broader Employment Law Lesson: When Workplace Oversight Fails
The Skaggs trial is not a story about baseball so much as a case study in the potential liability arising from alleged organizational failure. Every employer, regardless of industry, can recognize something uncomfortably familiar in its facts.
- The peril of inaction
When credible warnings arise — from a spouse, coworker, or subordinate — silence is not neutrality; it is complicity. A manager’s hesitation to escalate an uncomfortable issue, for whatever reason, can later read as willful blindness. In the Angels’ case, that alleged inaction became a central pillar of the plaintiffs’ negligence claim.
- Inconsistent policy enforcement
Plaintiffs argue the Angels strictly enforced drug and alcohol policies for lower-level staff but ignored them for a favored insider, demonstrating inconsistent workplace compliance and policy enforcement. That inconsistency, which juries easily understand, erodes credibility and can be just as damaging in employment law cases including discrimination, harassment, or retaliation litigation.
- Leadership and documentation
Policies have no power unless leaders follow them. When an executive bypasses HR, the paper trail stops — and so does the company’s defense. A written policy ignored in practice becomes a liability exhibit, not a shield.
- Optics and reputation
Beyond the courtroom, the fallout from Skaggs’s death and the civil trial has generated widespread negative publicity. For employers, reputational damage is its own form of loss: trust erodes, morale drops, stakeholders recoil. A company caught “asleep at the switch” may survive legally but suffer publicly for years.
Why It Matters
Most organizations will never face a tragedy as public or heartbreaking as this one.
But the mechanics of failure are rarely dramatic; they’re built from small omissions that, in hindsight, form a pattern of neglect.
Policies are more than compliance documents; they represent a company’s values in action and are essential for organizational liability prevention. When practice falls short, the consequences can reach beyond the balance sheet.
Tyler Skaggs’s story, stripped of its headlines, is a reminder that prevention is leadership’s most fundamental duty. Whether you manage a ballclub or a business, act early, act consistently, and document everything. Because when the warning signs are clear and the response is not, the next headline could be yours.
Key Takeaways for Employers
For organizations looking to apply these lessons, four themes stand out:
- Respond promptly to credible warnings. Delay invites liability.
- Apply policies evenly. Consistency is both fairness and defense.
- Document escalation. A written record protects both managers and the organization in compliance and risk management.
- Lead by example. Oversight starts at the top; culture mirrors leadership.
Note: Information in this article is drawn from publicly available reporting and official releases as of November 2025. It is provided for informational purposes and should not be treated as a statement of adjudicated fact.
Disclaimer: This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Galloway and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
