659 F.Supp.3d 1208
D. Kan.2023Background
- Plaintiff estate alleges CNA Muhammad Q. Akram raped resident Deena Glaves while she lived at Mapleton Andover LLC; Glaves died shortly thereafter. Plaintiffs assert negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent investigation, wrongful death/survivor and punitive damages theories.
- Mapleton hired Akram on January 1, 2020. It did a Kansas Nurse Aide Registry check but did not obtain a KDADS criminal-history check until June 25, 2020 (six months after hiring); KDADS then reported no disqualifying convictions based on information it had at the time.
- Security footage and staff reports (shaved pubic hair discovered July 30, 2020) led to an internal/state review; Akram was suspended August 3, 2020 and terminated August 10, 2020.
- KDADS did not have records of several earlier allegations involving Akram until after he was hired (and some records appeared later in 2020); another facility (Wheat State Manor) later performed multiple checks and initially hired then fired him.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment; the court denied summary judgment on negligent-hiring claims (claims 1–3) and negligent-supervision (claim 6, as to negligent supervision), and granted summary judgment on negligent-investigation claims (claims 4–5) and on punitive/respondeat-superior theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kan. Stat. § 39-970(e) shields Mapleton from negligent-hiring liability | Mapleton failed to act in good faith under § 39-970 by not completing required background checks (or an "inclusive" check) before or within the statutory provisional period | Mapleton complied with statutory screening (registry + KDADS check) and thus is immune under § 39-970(e) | Denied summary judgment: genuine dispute whether Mapleton acted in good faith under § 39-970 because it did not run the KDADS check until six months into employment; issue for factfinder |
| Whether negligent-investigation claims fail for lack of causation (claims 4–5) | Mapleton improperly investigated and covered up, worsening harm | The alleged investigation occurred after the rape; it could not have proximately caused the rape | Granted summary judgment: as a matter of law investigation could not have caused the earlier assault; plaintiffs did not respond to causation argument |
| Whether negligent-supervision/respondeat superior claim (claim 6) can survive | Mapleton should have known of Akram's dangerous propensities and failed to supervise/investigate | Employer not vicariously liable for employee intentional crimes absent authorization/ratification or scope-of-employment; and plaintiffs abandoned some theories | Mixed: denied as to negligent supervision (triable factual dispute whether Mapleton should have known/did enough); granted to extent claim relied on respondeat superior/authorization or ratification |
| Whether punitive damages are available | Plaintiffs seek punitive damages based on alleged wanton or ratifying conduct by Mapleton | No punitive damages absent clear-and-convincing proof of authorization/ratification or willful/wanton conduct; punitive damages barred for ordinary negligent hiring/supervision | Granted in part: punitive damages dismissed because plaintiffs failed to show authorization/ratification or wantonness by clear-and-convincing evidence; negligent-hiring/supervision alone insufficient for punitive award |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (courts may view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant and consider video evidence at summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party's burdens and summary judgment procedure)
- Hale v. Brown, 197 P.3d 438 (Kan. 2008) (elements of negligence under Kansas law)
- Reeves v. Carlson, 969 P.2d 252 (Kan. 1998) (definition and standard for wanton conduct under Kansas law)
- Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993) (limits on punitive damages and employer liability)