242 (Me.1991).) To the contrary, it is difficult to think of a claim that is more intrinsically work-related than sexual harassment alleged to have created a hostile work environment. Plaintiff also argues that the injury was not work-related because the “activity causing the injury” was not “implied into the contract of employment.” (Id. at 8 (citing Dorey, 591 A.2d at 242).) Plaintiff characterizes the “activity causing the injury” as “tolerance of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.” (Id.) However, it is clear from the case law that the “activity” in question in this factor is not tortious conduct of the harasser or the attitude of the victim toward the harassment but the activity that the victim was engaged in when she suffered the injury. See Dorey, 591 A.2d at 242 (<HOLDING>). In this case, there is no indication that
holding that employees stress injury solely due to disciplinary proceedings was not compensable under workers compensation holding that an employees visit to the office solely to retrieve medical documents for a workers compensation claim was not an activity implied into the contract of employment holding that an agencys determination on a workers compensation claim was entitled to deference recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act 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