McCafferty v. Preiss Enterprises, Inc.
534 F. App'x 726
10th Cir.2013Background
- McCafferty, a minor applicant, was hired by Preiss, operator of a McDonald’s in Cheyenne, WY, in February 2007
- Peterson, a shift leader/manager-in-training, had substantial influence over crew but no hiring/firing authority
- In March 2007, Peterson allegedly arranged McCafferty’s early checkout, provided alcohol and drugs, and engaged in sexual activity with her off premises
- McCafferty sought Title VII and state-law claims; district court granted summary judgment to Preiss and Peterson on federal claims and to Preiss on state-law claims
- McCafferty appeals challenging supervisor liability under Title VII, agency theories, and negligent supervision/retention and ratification theories
- The panel affirms the district court’s judgments and finds Peterson not a Title VII supervisor and no basis for agency-based liability
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peterson was a supervisor for Title VII vicarious liability | McCafferty argues Peterson’s authority to direct daily work and authorize shifts supports supervisor status | Preiss contends Peterson lacked power to hire/fire/promote/transfer and thus was not a supervisor under Vance | Peterson not a supervisor; no vicarious liability under Vance |
| Whether Preiss can be liable under an apparent authority/agency theory for Peterson’s actions | McCafferty asserts Preiss aided or ratified via apparent authority enabling harassment | Preiss rejects that mere proximity and input suffice for agency liability; no evidence of “something more” | Agency theory rejected; no liability under aided in the agency relation |
| Whether McCafferty’s federal claims against Peterson individually survive | McCafferty contends individual liability for harassment by a supervisor | Court had previously held statutory liability under Title VII borne by employers, not individuals | Claims against Peterson individually are waived/foregone |
| Whether Preiss is negligent in hiring, supervising, retaining Peterson | Preiss negligent in employment of an improper person; ratification claims | Record shows Peterson acted outside scope of employment; no supervisor/ratification evidence | Negligent hiring/retention/ supervision and ratification claims fail as a matter of law |
| Whether Preiss’s ratification of Peterson’s actions supported vicarious liability | Preiss allegedly continued employment and promotions after events, implying approval | No evidence of full knowledge and approval of all material facts; evidence of limited awareness | No ratification; insufficient to impose liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (establishes supervisor liability framework for tangible employment actions)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 243 (2013) (limits supervisor status to those empowered to take tangible employment actions)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (employer duty to prevent harassment; related defenses in hostile environment claims)
- Wright-Simmons v. City of Oklahoma City, 155 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 1998) (apparent authority/agency considerations in Title VII context)
- Shafer v. TNT Well Serv., Inc., 285 P.3d 958 (Wy. 2012) (Wyoming scope-of-employment analysis for negligent supervision)
- Kanzler v. Renner, 937 P.2d 1337 (Wy. 1997) (Wyoming rule for scope of employee conduct; supervisory scope limits)
- Boyer-Gladden v. Hill, 224 P.3d 21 (Wy. 2010) (scope of duties and institutional responsibilities in state tort analysis)