West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority v. A.B.
234 W. Va. 492
| W. Va. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff A.B., a female inmate, alleged that Correctional Officer D.H. raped her repeatedly (Oct 2009–Apr 2010) while she was confined at Southern Regional Jail; D.H. denies the allegations. Plaintiff sued D.H. (individual) and the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (WVRJCFA).
- Plaintiff pleaded negligence claims (negligent supervision, training, retention) and vicarious liability against WVRJCFA; she expressly did not pursue § 1983 or state-constitutional claims against the WVRJCFA and dismissed several claims during litigation.
- At summary judgment the WVRJCFA asserted qualified (official) immunity, arguing: (1) vicarious liability cannot attach because the alleged sexual assaults were outside D.H.’s scope of employment; and (2) training/supervision/retention are discretionary functions protected by immunity absent a violation of a clearly established law.
- The circuit court denied summary judgment, finding disputed factual issues as to scope of employment and that negligent supervision/training/retention were not discretionary policy decisions. WVRJCFA appealed.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals (majority) reversed: (1) held the alleged sexual assaults were manifestly outside the scope of employment so WVRJCFA is not vicariously liable; (2) held training, supervision, and retention are discretionary functions and plaintiff failed to identify a clearly established law or regulation violated by WVRJCFA, so immunity applies. The Court therefore remanded to enter summary judgment dismissing WVRJCFA. Chief Justice Davis dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State agency is vicariously liable for intentional sexual assaults by an employee | Assaults occurred while officer was on duty and used position to commit acts; thus within scope of employment and WVRJCFA can be vicariously liable | Assaults were criminal, outside the scope of employment and expressly prohibited by statute; employer immune from vicarious liability | Held: assaults were manifestly outside scope of employment; WVRJCFA not vicariously liable (qualified immunity applies) |
| Whether negligent supervision/training/retention claims against WVRJCFA are barred by discretionary-function immunity | These corrective/oversight functions are not purely discretionary; imposing immunity would leave inmates without remedy | Hiring, training, supervision, retention are discretionary policy functions; immunity applies unless a clearly established law was violated | Held: training/supervision/retention are discretionary; plaintiff failed to identify a clearly established law/regulation WVRJCFA violated; immunity bars claim |
| Whether PREA or other standards supplied a clearly established law defeating immunity | PREA and related standards establish obligations to prevent prison rape and thus defeat immunity | PREA is not a private right of action and national standards were not binding at the time; plaintiff cites no clearly established statutory/regulatory violation by WVRJCFA | Held: PREA and its federal standards did not provide a clearly established right here; plaintiff failed to identify applicable violated regulation |
| Whether a "special relationship" or public-duty exception defeats immunity | Inmate status creates a special duty to protect, which prevents immunity | Special-duty/public-duty doctrine was not properly invoked below; this interlocutory appeal is limited to immunity; plaintiff did not plead or pursue the theory properly | Held: Court did not apply special-duty exception to defeat immunity in this interlocutory posture; plaintiff’s invocation insufficient to overcome qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Parkulo v. West Virginia Bd. of Probation & Parole, 199 W.Va. 161 (1996) (explains relationship between state immunity and public-official qualified immunity and urges case-by-case analysis)
- State v. Chase Securities, Inc., 188 W.Va. 356 (1992) (qualified immunity for public executive officials: no liability where conduct did not violate clearly established law)
- Clark v. Dunn, 195 W.Va. 272 (1995) (discretionary-function immunity extended to rank-and-file employees; negligence claims barred absent waiver)
- Hutchison v. City of Huntington, 198 W.Va. 139 (1996) (immunity questions are legal and ripe for summary disposition absent bona fide factual disputes)
- Griffith v. George Transfer & Rigging, Inc., 157 W.Va. 316 (1973) (scope of employment usually a jury question; becomes question of law when undisputed facts permit only one inference)
- Heckenlaible v. Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail Authority, 491 F.Supp.2d 544 (E.D. Va. 2007) (district court held jury question could exist where employment duties facilitated access and supervision that led to assault)
- J.H. v. West Virginia Div. of Rehabilitation Svcs., 224 W.Va. 147 (2009) (special-relationship exception to public-duty doctrine may defeat dismissal; factual inquiry for jury)