548 P.3d 538
Utah Ct. App.2024Background
- Aaron Sampson, a customer at a Burger King owned by HB Boys, LC (HBB), was subjected to racist remarks and solicited assault by the shift supervisor after requesting a refund for an undercooked burger.
- During a subsequent visit with his cousin, Sampson was again targeted by the same shift supervisor, who made racist slurs and urged her acquaintance to assault Sampson inside and outside the restaurant.
- The shift supervisor was terminated by HBB after Sampson reported the incident.
- Sampson sued HBB under the Utah Civil Rights Act (UCRA) alleging vicarious liability via respondeat superior for the supervisor’s conduct.
- The district court granted summary judgment for HBB, finding no vicarious liability under general agency or respondeat superior, partly because HBB had anti-discrimination policies and required employee training.
- Sampson appealed the grant of summary judgment on his UCRA and respondeat superior claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the UCRA's private action require application of common law agency or respondeat superior principles? | UCRA should allow vicarious liability for employee acts via respondeat superior. | Only acts within actual or implied authority can be imputed; respondeat superior doesn’t apply. | UCRA incorporates respondeat superior; business entities can be vicariously liable for employee acts. |
| Was the shift supervisor acting within the scope of employment in her interactions with Sampson? | Handling customer complaints was within her job; improper conduct does not remove conduct from scope. | Racist remarks and soliciting assault were outside the scope and not serving employer’s interests. | Reasonable minds could differ; issue of scope of employment is for a jury, not summary judgment. |
| Is the existence of anti-discrimination policies determinative of HBB’s liability? | Policies/training do not negate vicarious liability for actions foreseeably within employment. | Policies, training, and violation thereof preclude vicarious liability. | Existence of policies is not determinative; relevant fact for jury consideration. |
| Was summary judgment in favor of HBB proper under these facts? | Disputed material facts preclude summary judgment. | No factual dispute; supervisor acted outside scope as a matter of law. | Summary judgment reversed; facts must go to a jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ockey v. Club Jam, 328 P.3d 880 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (summary judgment standard—facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Bishop v. GenTec Inc., 48 P.3d 218 (Utah 2002) (preemption of common law by statute analyzed)
- Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037 (Utah 1991) (scope of employment generally a question for the jury)
- Phillips v. JCM Dev. Corp., 666 P.2d 876 (Utah 1983) (vicarious liability may attach despite employee acting against policy)