in part and aff’d in part on rehearing, 214 Miss. 569, 59 So.2d 294 (1952)). 37 . Tanks, 332 F.Supp.2d at 964 & 964 n. 14. 38 . Id. 39 . Williams, 683 F.2d at 939; Big "2” Engine Rebuilders, 379 So.2d at 891. 40 . Tanks also argues that we should affirm the district court’s ruling because she may be able to demonstrate that Lockheed intended for Willis’s injury to happen, and that this intent of the employer is sufficient to remove the case from the exclusivity bar of the MWCA. The Mississippi Supreme Court has never held that an employer, even with actual notice of a third party’s intent to harm an employee, is strictly liable for the acts of that third party on the employer’s premises outside the confines of the MWCA. See Newell v. S. Jitney Jungle Co., 830 So.2d 621, 624 (Miss.2002)(<HOLDING>). 41 . The federal discrimination claims first
holding that where employee gave notice to employer of injury and employer told employee that nothing could be done for him through workmans compensation employer had breached statute and was liable for medical treatment which was reasonable and necessary to restore employee to maximum usefulness holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employees complaint alleged inter alia employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment employer tested employees blood to monitor lead levels employer willfully and intentionally withheld employees test results which showed employee had developed leadrelated diseases and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer employee further alleged employers concealment of employees condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employees injury holding employer not liable to employee shot at work by her husband despite actual notice to the employer of the estranged husbands threats to harm the employee as the court refused to impose strict liability on businesses for injuries inflicted by third parties on employees holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits holding that the employee must at least provide his employer with enough information for the employer to be put on notice that the fmla is a consideration