Anicich v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
852 F.3d 643
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Alisha Bromfield’s mother, administrator) sued Home Depot and affiliated employers after regional manager Brian Cooper, their supervisor, murdered and raped Alisha after coercing her to attend his sister’s wedding by threatening termination or reduced hours.
- Complaint alleges Cooper had a longstanding pattern of sexual harassment, verbal abuse, intimidation, monitoring, requiring travel and shared lodging, and that managers knew or observed misconduct yet failed to remediate.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing no duty to control outside-the-workplace violence and that the harm was unforeseeable; district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo, accepting complaint allegations and reversing dismissal, holding Illinois law permits negligent hiring/supervision/retention claims where an employer knew or should have known of an employee’s particular unfitness that creates foreseeable danger to third parties.
- The court held that a supervisor’s abuse of delegated supervisory authority (e.g., threats of tangible employment action) can satisfy Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317(a)’s premises/chattel requirement analogously, so the claim could proceed to factual development on foreseeability and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois law recognizes negligent hiring/supervision/retention when a supervisor commits an intentional tort outside work | Anicich: employer negligently retained/supervised a supervisor with known history of harassment and control, causing foreseeable harm | Home Depot/Grand: no duty; would improperly extend employer tort liability and impose intolerable burdens | Court: Illinois permits such negligent-employment claims; complaint plausibly states them and survives 12(b)(6) |
| Whether employer duty is limited to torts occurring on premises or involving employer chattels | Anicich: supervisory authority is functionally like a chattel/entrustment and can enable torts off-premises | Defendants: §317(a) applies only when tort occurred on premises or with chattel; Cooper’s crime was off-premises and without employer chattels | Court: supervisory authority can satisfy §317(a) analogy; use of employment power (threats to fire/cut hours) connects the crime to employment for negligent-retention claim |
| Foreseeability — whether prior misconduct made murder a reasonably foreseeable harm | Anicich: escalation of harassment, public outbursts, monitoring, prior complaints, and failure to remediate made some harm foreseeable | Defendants: Cooper never previously physically assaulted or threatened violence; murder was unforeseeable as a matter of law | Court: foreseeability is a jury question; detailed allegations permit a reasonable jury to find some harm was foreseeable; dismissal improper |
| Whether imposing liability would create new obligations beyond existing law (Title VII/ILHR protections) | Anicich: suit seeks recovery under common-law negligence where employer was negligent; it does not impose novel regulatory duties | Defendants: finding duty would expand employer obligations and burdens | Court: employers already have statutory duties (Title VII/Illinois Human Rights Act) to prevent/discipline harassment; allowing the common-law claim does not impose novel obligations and is incremental and appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Horne v. Muller, 705 N.E.2d 898 (Ill. 1998) (recognizes employer liability for negligently hiring/retaining an employee unfit for the job who creates danger to third persons)
- Simmons v. Homatas, 925 N.E.2d 1089 (Ill. 2010) (general rule: no duty to prevent third-party criminal acts, subject to recognized exceptions)
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (supervisory tangible employment actions can render employer vicariously liable for supervisor misconduct; affirmative defense where no tangible action was taken)
- Platson v. NSM America, Inc., 748 N.E.2d 1278 (Ill. App. 2001) (negligent supervision claim viable where employer knew employee’s particular unfitness and harm was foreseeable)
- Rowe v. State Bank of Lombard, 531 N.E.2d 1358 (Ill. 1988) (foreseeability of some harm—though not exact injury—can support liability when the known risk required greater care)
- Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, 4 N.E.3d 550 (Ill. 2014) (employer duty limited to injuries that occurred by virtue of the servant’s employment)