Angela Evans v. Tacoma School District No. 10
195 Wash. App. 25
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Angela Evans sued Tacoma School District seeking damages for harm to her parent-child relationship after her minor daughter JM allegedly entered a sexual relationship with Jesse Brent, a District security guard.
- Evans did not name Brent as a defendant nor join JM as a plaintiff; she asserted claims on her own behalf (seduction of a child under RCW 4.24.020, alienation of a child’s affections, negligent hiring/retention/supervision/training, and negligent failure to report under RCW 26.44.030).
- The District moved to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6); the trial court dismissed the seduction, alienation, and negligent hiring/retention/supervision/training claims, but denied dismissal of the failure-to-report claim; after discovery the District obtained summary judgment on the failure-to-report claim.
- Key factual record: teachers observed Brent frequently in classrooms and described his conduct as informal or unprofessional; a student declaration asserted Brent repeatedly flirted with and focused on JM, but there was no evidence in the record that District employees knew of an actual sexual relationship or received a report of sexual abuse before JM turned 18.
- Evans alleged the District was vicariously liable for Brent’s acts and alternatively directly liable for negligent hiring/retention/supervision/training and failure to report; she sought reversal of the dismissals and summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether seduction of a child (RCW 4.24.020) supports vicarious liability against the District | Evans: District vicariously liable for Brent’s seduction of JM under respondeat superior | District: statute targets perpetrator; District not liable for seduction by employee | Court: seduction claim viable against perpetrator but District not vicariously liable because Brent’s sexual acts were for personal gratification and outside scope of employment as a matter of law |
| Whether alienation of a child’s affections is a viable tort and whether District is vicariously liable | Evans: tort exists and District vicariously liable for Brent’s conduct | District: claim abolished or at least District not liable for employee’s sexual relationship | Court: alienation-of-affections of a child is viable; but District not vicariously liable because Brent acted for personal sexual gratification outside scope of employment |
| Whether RCW 26.44.030 (mandatory reporting) creates an implied private cause of action for a parent and whether the District is liable for employees’ failure to report | Evans: statute implies a parent’s remedy; District (vicariously) liable for employees who failed to report observable grooming/abuse | District: statute protects children, not parents; only employees (not District) are mandatory reporters; no reasonable cause to believe abuse occurred before JM turned 18 | Court: parent has an implied cause of action and the District can be vicariously liable for employees’ failure to report, but Evans failed to raise a genuine issue that employees had reasonable cause to believe JM was being abused, so summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether negligent hiring/retention/supervision/training claims were properly dismissed under CR 12(b)(6) | Evans: District owed duty to foreseeable victims including parents harmed by employee sexual misconduct | District: duty runs only to students, not to parents; claims fail as a matter of law | Court: employer’s duty for negligent hiring/retention/supervision/training is owed to foreseeable victims; it was conceivable Evans could be a foreseeable victim, so dismissal was error and claims survive pleading-stage challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wn.2d 35 (Washington 2002) (respondeat superior scope-of-employment framework; sexual-misconduct exception where acts are for personal sexual gratification)
- Niece v. Elmview Group Home, 131 Wn.2d 39 (Washington 1997) (employer liability for negligent hiring/retention/supervision; distinction between duty to control employees and duty to protect victims)
- C.J.C. v. Corporation of the Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 699 (Washington 1999) (intentional sexual misconduct by clergy found outside scope of employment)
- Beggs v. Department of Social and Health Services, 171 Wn.2d 69 (Washington 2011) (RCW 26.44.030 implies a civil cause of action for child victims against mandatory reporters)
- Bratton v. Calkins, 73 Wn. App. 492 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) (school employee’s sexual relationship with student outside scope of employment; district not vicariously liable)
- Strode v. Gleason, 9 Wn. App. 13 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973) (recognition of alienation-of-a-child’s-affections tort)