Peña v. Greffet
110 F. Supp. 3d 1103
D.N.M.2015Background
- Plaintiff Crystal Peña, an inmate at the New Mexico Women’s Correctional Facility (operated by CCA), alleges Corrections Officer Dale Greffet sexually assaulted her repeatedly while on duty and thereafter, resulting in pregnancy and other harms.
- Peña sued Greffet and Vallejos individually, Warden Hickson, and CCA under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law (battery/rape), alleging among other claims that CCA is vicariously liable for Greffet’s intentional torts.
- The key legal question is whether CCA can be held vicariously liable under New Mexico’s aided-in-agency doctrine (Restatement (Second) §219(2)(d) as adopted in Ocana) when a corrections officer used his institutional authority to commit sexual battery.
- CCA moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing Peña failed to plausibly plead aided-in-agency liability and that the doctrine should not apply where torts occurred outside official duties, repeatedly, or in violation of policy; CCA also stressed that the Restatement (Third) rejects the doctrine.
- The court denied judgment on the pleadings, predicting New Mexico law would apply the aided-in-agency theory to prison guard–inmate sexual torts where the guard’s employer‑vested authority gave extraordinary power over the inmate and that power aided commission of the tort; the question is for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCA can be vicariously liable under the aided‑in‑agency doctrine for Greffet’s intentional sexual torts | Peña: Greffet’s officer status, authority, access, and ability to summon her to the Commander’s office aided him in committing the assaults, so aided‑in‑agency liability is plausible | CCA: Complaint does not plead the doctrine; assaults outside the facility and after employment show agency did not aid the torts; doctrine would impose near‑strict liability | Court: Denied judgment on pleadings — facts plausibly show Greffet’s agency‑vested power aided the battery; issue goes to jury |
| Whether aided‑in‑agency is limited to supervisor‑subordinate (Title VII) context or extends to custodial settings (prison guards) | Peña: agency relationship and on‑premises officer authority plausibly aided the torts regardless of Title VII framing | CCA: Ocana and Title VII limits preclude broad application; doctrine cannot swallow respondeat superior rule | Court: Predicts New Mexico would extend aided‑in‑agency beyond Title VII to custodial contexts where employer‑vested extraordinary power over victim aided the tort |
| Whether the Restatement (Third)’s abandonment of “aided in accomplishing” undermines the doctrine | Peña: Ocana controls New Mexico law; later Restatement change is not controlling | CCA: Third Restatement repudiation shows doctrine is unsound and should be rejected | Court: Third Restatement is persuasive only; Ocana is controlling in New Mexico and the court predicts the state would not discard Ocana here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ocana v. American Furniture Co., 135 N.M. 539, 91 P.3d 58 (N.M. 2004) (New Mexico Supreme Court adopted aided‑in‑agency doctrine and assessed whether supervisor status aided tort)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (Title VII framework recognizing vicarious liability for supervisor harassment with qualifications)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (companion Title VII decision shaping aided‑in‑agency application in employment context)
- Costos v. Coconut Island Corp., 137 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1998) (applying aided‑in‑agency where employee used an agency instrumentality to commit rape)
- Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.3d 202, 814 P.2d 1341 (Cal. 1991) (California Supreme Court recognizing police‑officer power rationale for vicarious liability in sexual‑assault context)
- Doe v. Forrest, 176 Vt. 476, 853 A.2d 48 (Vt. 2004) (Vermont Supreme Court applied aided‑in‑agency to on‑duty deputy’s sexual assault where officer’s extraordinary power over citizen could have aided the tort)
- Doe v. Newbury Bible Church, 182 Vt. 174, 933 A.2d 196 (Vt. 2007) (distinguishing Forrest and declining to extend aided‑in‑agency to a pastor‑parishioner context)