been subject to the provisions of the Act if their employers had elected to participate.... Given that only some employees were automatically covered by the Act and that the determination of whether employees not involved in extra-hazardous employment were covered by the Act was made by employers, we cannot concur that: Because every worker in Wyoming now may receive an equal benefit under the act with respect to the protection afforded the co-employee, there seems no prospect of supporting the claim of a deprivation of equal protection. Mills v. Reynolds, 807 P.2d [383,] 397 [ (Wyo.1991)] (emphasis added). The Act created classifications which treat similarly situated people differently. Mills, 837 P.2d at 51 (brackets added). Cf. Thompson v. Forest, 136 N.H. 215, 614 A.2d 1064 (1992) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Those states that permit co-employees to
holding that the coemployee immunity provision in workers compensation law was constitutional holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim holding that prohibition may not be used to raise affirmative defense of workers compensation immunity holding that a claim did not arise under a workers compensation law when it stated a right to relief in tort and sought common law damages distinct from statutory compensation scheme holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act