Miles v. Simmons University, 514 F.Supp.3d 1070

Background

Plaintiff Jennifer Miles was a Simmons University graduate student who attended classes via Zoom; sessions were recorded and described as confidential and restricted to class participants.
During a February 2019 virtual class, Miles used the restroom believing her webcam was off; she was visible to the class and later embarrassed.
In March 2020 a cell‑phone video of that Zoom session (showing Miles) was posted to Twitter and went viral; Miles alleges the video came from Professor Kyle Killian’s screen and that he recorded and posted it.
Miles sued Killian (for publication of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress) and sued Simmons on a vicarious‑liability theory; Simmons moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The district court applied federal plausibility pleading standards under Twombly/Iqbal and Minnesota law on respondeat superior and held Miles failed to plausibly allege Killian acted within the scope of his employment (no foreseeability, no work‑time/place nexus, and no authorization or employer interest).
The court also declined to adopt or apply an aided‑by‑agency theory under Minnesota law for these torts and dismissed Simmons without prejudice to permit discovery that might support amendment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miles plausibly alleged Simmons is vicariously liable (scope of employment)	Killian recorded/posting arose out of his role as professor; alleges recordings were confidential and course was taught using Simmons systems	Killian’s alleged recording/posting was outside his employment scope; complaint lacks foreseeability and work‑time/place facts	Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plausibly plead scope: no foreseeability, no work‑time/place nexus, not authorized, not in employer’s interest
Whether aided‑by‑agency theory supports vicarious liability	Simmons’ institutional relationship and Killian’s authority over students aided the misconduct	Minnesota does not recognize aided‑by‑agency broadly; allegations do not show misuse of supervisory power to accomplish the tort	Rejected — theory is not applicable here; Minnesota precedent limits that theory to narrow supervisor‑created hostile‑environment contexts
Whether scope‑of‑employment may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion	Plaintiff argued it’s a factual question not suitable for dismissal at pleading stage	Simmons argued plaintiff must plead plausible facts showing scope; plausibility standard applies	Court held scope can be evaluated at pleading stage; plaintiff must plead facts to make scope plausible under Twombly/Iqbal
Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice	Plaintiff requested without prejudice to allow discovery to possibly reveal facts supporting vicarious liability	Simmons sought dismissal (implicitly with prejudice)	Dismissed without prejudice — discovery against Killian might yield facts allowing amendment

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes federal plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (applies plausibility standard to factual allegations)
Gorog v. Best Buy Co., 760 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2014) (pleading standard; accept complaint facts at motion to dismiss)
Fahrendorff ex rel. Fahrendorff v. North Homes, Inc., 597 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 1999) (respondeat superior standard in Minnesota)
Frieler v. Carlson Mktg. Grp., Inc., 751 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 2008) (discusses intentional‑act scope elements and aided‑by‑agency context)
Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N.P., 767 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (foreseeability required to establish scope; confidentiality policies insufficient alone)
Snilsberg v. Lake Washington Club, 614 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000) (additional scope factors for negligent acts)
Hagen v. Burmeister & Assocs., Inc., 633 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. 2001) (scope of employment is a fact question but foreseeability test applies)
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Clark, 727 F. Supp. 2d 765 (D. Minn. 2010) (plaintiff bears burden to show acts were within employment scope)