Lee v. Dorsey
3:21-cv-04137
| D.S.C. | Jun 15, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Dominique Lee, a hotel guest, alleges Marcus Dorsey (a temporary rotating manager) sexually assaulted him in the hotel office after calling him to discuss an outstanding balance.
- Lee sued Dorsey for assault and battery (sexual) and intentional infliction of emotional distress; sued Red Roof Inns, Inc. and WHG SU Columbia, LLC (Hotel Defendants) for negligent hiring/retention/supervision and vicarious liability.
- The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending summary judgment for the Hotel Defendants; Lee filed objections and submitted a post-Report HR deposition (Taylor‑Quarles) describing a prior employee complaint about Dorsey making an inappropriate sexual comment to another employee (Holden).
- The Court declined to consider admissions from Dorsey that would bind only him and not the Hotel Defendants, and reviewed Lee’s objections de novo.
- The Court found Holden’s complaint concerned an inappropriate comment, not an act of sexual assault, and thus did not give Hotel Defendants actual or constructive notice making Lee’s harm foreseeable.
- The Court held sexual assaults are outside the scope of employment under South Carolina law, adopted the Report, granted summary judgment for the Hotel Defendants, and left only Lee’s claims against Dorsey pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual knowledge / foreseeability from prior complaints | Lee: HR deposition shows prior complaint (Holden) about Dorsey’s sexualized comment, establishing actual notice and foreseeability | Hotel: Prior complaint was only about an inappropriate comment and was untimely/evidentiary insufficient to show notice | Court: Prior complaint did not show misconduct similar to sexual assault and did not make Lee’s harm foreseeable; objection overruled |
| Constructive notice / propensity / open‑secret theory | Lee: Other employees knew of Dorsey’s misconduct, so employer should have known (propensity/open secret) | Hotel: Argument amounts to impermissible res ipsa loquitur; no evidence reports reached management | Court: Two employees’ knowledge without reporting or dates insufficient to impute notice; objection overruled |
| Systemic oversight / failure to investigate | Lee: Hotel’s confusion over who should investigate (HR vs. GMs) shows systemic supervision problems and constructive notice | Hotel: Post‑incident investigation issues are irrelevant to pre‑incident notice | Court: No evidence systemic failures concealed prior misconduct before Lee’s assault; objection overruled |
| Vicarious liability / scope of employment for sexual assault | Lee: Dorsey was a manager; his role imposed higher duty and acts fall within scope of employment | Hotel: Sexual assaults are outside scope of employment under SC law; no vicarious liability | Court: Sexual assault falls outside scope of employment under South Carolina precedent; hotel not vicariously liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (discussing the magistrate judge’s advisory recommendation and de novo review standard)
- Karsten v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Mid-Atlantic States, Inc., 36 F.3d 8 (4th Cir. 1994) (if one reason is independently sufficient, others are surplusage)
- Doe v. ATC, Inc., 624 S.E.2d 447 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005) (negligent hiring/retention focuses on employer knowledge and foreseeability)
- Graham v. Town of Latta, 789 S.E.2d 71 (S.C. Ct. App. 2016) (South Carolina does not recognize res ipsa loquitur as relieving plaintiff’s burden to prove lack of reasonable care)
- Doe v. S.C. State Budget & Control Bd., 494 S.E.2d 469 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997) (sexual assaults by employees do not create vicarious liability for employer)