Doe v. Regents of University of California CA4/3
G051379
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 26, 2016Background
- Plaintiff (Jane Doe), a UCSB undergraduate, was sexually assaulted in a UCSB on-campus office by Jeffrey Beckstrand, a graduate student and teaching assistant employed by UCSB.
- The assault involved threats (claiming to have a knife) and physical violence; it occurred after the student requested academic help and met Beckstrand on campus at night.
- Plaintiff sued the Regents of the University of California asserting vicarious (respondeat superior) liability for Beckstrand’s sexual battery and assault. Other direct-negligence claims were dropped or not pursued in the second amended complaint.
- The Regents demurred, arguing sexual misconduct by employees falls outside the course and scope of employment and so cannot be imputed to the employer.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend; plaintiff did not seek leave to amend below or on appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that respondeat superior liability does not extend to an employee’s intentional sexual assault absent a sufficient nexus to employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the University is vicariously liable for a TA’s sexual assault of a student | University’s larger size, on-campus office location, and adult student population make respondeat superior appropriate; vicarious liability would promote prevention and safety measures | Sexual assault was a personal, intentional act outside the scope of employment; mere opportunity or on-campus location is insufficient to impose vicarious liability | Court held respondent not vicariously liable; sexual assault was outside scope of employment and employer cannot be held liable under respondeat superior |
Key Cases Cited
- John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 48 Cal.3d 438 (Cal. 1989) (seminal holding that teachers’ sexual misconduct is generally outside scope of employment and employer vicarious liability is improper)
- C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist., 53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012) (reaffirming that sexual misconduct by school employees typically falls outside course and scope)
- Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara, 11 Cal.4th 992 (Cal. 1995) (vicarious liability inappropriate where misconduct arises from personal compulsion unrelated to employer’s enterprise)
- Z.V. v. County of Riverside, 238 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (discussing limits of risk-spreading rationale for imposing respondeat superior for intentional sexual assault)
- Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 81 Cal.App.4th 377 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (collecting authorities rejecting vicarious liability for sexual misconduct by employees)