Lousteau v. Congregation of Holy Cross Southern Province, Inc., 2:21-cv-01457

John Lousteau sued Congregation of Holy Cross Moreau Province, Inc. and Holy Cross College, Inc. for damages from alleged sexual abuse by Brother Stanley Repucci at a Holy Cross summer camp in 1968 or 1969.
Lousteau alleges Repucci, then the camp director and a teacher at Holy Cross School, assaulted him twice at the camp dormitory during nightly room inspections.
Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to hold both defendant organizations vicariously liable for Repucci’s actions.
The core dispute was whether Moreau Province, in addition to Holy Cross, had an employer-employee relationship with Repucci sufficient to create vicarious liability.
The court evaluated evidence of hiring, control, disciplinary authority, and organizational structure between the Province, Repucci, and Holy Cross.
Defendants disputed the sufficiency of these facts to establish vicarious liability, focusing on the lack of direct payment and supervision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Employer-Employee Status	Moreau Province had authority to hire, fire, assign, and control Repucci	Moreau Province did not supervise day-to-day or pay Repucci	Employer-employee relationship existed for vicarious liability
Course and Scope of Employment	Repucci’s actions occurred while performing his duties at the camp	Not meaningfully disputed	Conduct occurred within course and scope; vicarious liability applied

Doe v. Parauka, 714 So. 2d 701 (La. 1998) (outlines factors for employer-employee relationship in vicarious liability)
LeBrane v. Lewis, 292 So. 2d 216 (La. 1974) (establishes the test for torts committed within course and scope of employment)
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 673 So.2d 994 (La. 1996) (all factors of course and scope need not be present for liability)
Matlock v. Hankel, 707 So. 2d 1016 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1998) (an individual can be a servant of multiple principals under vicarious liability)