S.W. was 15 years old when Luis Morales offered her a job at US Metro Group, Inc., where Morales worked. S.W., who was best friends with Morales’ daughter, accepted Morales’ offer. She started working with Morales cleaning buildings at night. Morales then began sexually molesting S.W. He was later caught and criminally prosecuted.
S.W. sued Morales and Morales’ employer, US Metro Group, Inc., in civil court for sexual assault and battery, harassment in violation of the law, negligent hiring, negligent training and supervision, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to plaintiff, the employer knew about Morales’ criminal conduct and did nothing to prevent or stop it.
The employer countered that it had no reason to believe that Morales posed an undue risk to third persons, and that he had no criminal background that suggested he was unfit for the work at US Metro. Furthermore, the employer argued that S.W. was not its employee, and that Morales violated company policy by bringing a minor and nonemployee to worksites. Also, the employer said no one ever reported S.W. was present at worksites, that Morales’ interactions with S.W. were completely unrelated to his work duties, and that Morales molested S.W. at Morales’ home, and continued to molest her outside employer’s premises.
One of the questions the jury had to address is this: Is the employer liable for the criminal conduct of its employee towards another person, when that conduct may be unrelated to the employee’s work duties and done outside the workplace?
In California, an employee’s unauthorized conduct may be within the scope of his employment if the conduct was committed in the course and scope of employment or if the conduct arose from a risk inherent in or created by the employment. Furthermore, an employee’s wrongful or criminal conduct may be within the scope of employment even if it breaks a company rule. This is because an employer’s liability extends beyond its actual or possible control of the employee to include risks inherent in or created by the enterprise.
Additionally, even if the employee is not engaged in his primary tasks at the time of his wrongful act, if the wrongful act occurred in the course and scope of his authorized duties as an employee, then the employer may be liable for its employee’s wrongful act.
Therefore, an employee’s willful, and even criminal acts, may fall within the scope of his or her employment, even though the employer has not authorized the employee to commit crimes or intentional torts, and thus, make the employer liable for such willful and criminal acts.
In the case of S.W., as reported by the Daily Journal, the jury issued a verdict in S.W.’s favor and found the employer 60 percent liable and Morales 40 percent liable. The jury then awarded her $150,000 in future economic damages and $2.5 million in noneconomic damages for a total recovery of $2.65 million in damages.
Sexual misconduct in the workplace occurs in various forms. Several theories of liability may be used against the employer of the person who actually committed the misconduct. The choice of these theories, and the evidence presented at trial, are important to ensure payment of compensation to the victim of sexual misconduct.
***
The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost. Atty. Sayas’ Law Office is located at 500 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 980, Glendale, CA 91203. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit www.joesayaslaw.com.
***
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is trial attorney who has obtained several million dollar recoveries for his clients against employers and insurance companies. He has been selected as a Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, featured in the cover of Los Angeles Daily Journal’s Verdicts and Settlements, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.