Evans v. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc, 3:10-cv-00337

Plaintiff Temper Evans sues O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. and David Steele in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville Division (No. 3:10-CV-337).
Steele, an assistant store manager at O'Reilly’s Rockwood, Tennessee store, allegedly removed Evans’s personal cell phone from her pocket without consent during a November 2009 shift.
The phone contained Evans’s swimsuit photos, which Steele allegedly viewed for his own sexual gratification and shared with a store customer who was his friend.
Steele is alleged to have kept the phone and transmitted or forwarded pictures from Evans’s phone to himself.
Plaintiff asserts claims under the Federal Stored Communications Act, Tennessee computer and privacy statutes, and common-law tort theories, seeking vicarious liability under respondeat superior.
The court grants O'Reilly’s partial motion to dismiss certain respondeat superior claims, finding Steele’s acts outside the scope of employment as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Steele acted within the scope of employment	Evans argues O'Reilly is vicariously liable for Steele's actions.	O'Reilly contends Steele acted for personal reasons, outside the scope of employment.	Steele's conduct not within scope; no respondeat superior liability for O'Reilly.

Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 340 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2011) (scope-of-employment framework for Tennessee)
Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 840 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (scope-of-employment factors and Restatement influence)
Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2007) (strict pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must include plausible facts, not mere labels)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1191 (U.S. 2011) (cat's-paw theory in discrimination context; not applicable here)