ZUZUL v. MCDONALD
1:14-cv-00251
M.D.N.C.Aug 6, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Marcia Zuzul alleges assault, battery, and defamation by coworker Dr. Pearson at the VAMC in Salisbury, NC, plus related discrimination claims against the VA elsewhere in the case.
- The United States Attorney certified Pearson acted within the scope of federal employment under the Westfall Act, proposing substitution of the United States as the defendant under the FTCA.
- Plaintiff objected to substitution and sought discovery/hearing to challenge the scope-of-employment certification.
- The court explains the Westfall Act permits substitution if certification is made, but allows limited challenge by the plaintiff and may permit limited discovery or a hearing.
- Under North Carolina law, the scope-of-employment inquiry examines whether the tortious acts occurred in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the employee’s authorized duties, considering work-related context and personal motives.
- The court concludes the alleged torts occurred within the course of Pearson’s authorized duties, and finds no material factual dispute warranting discovery or a hearing, so substitution of the United States should be upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substitution is proper despite objections | Zuzul argues for denial of substitution or for limited discovery/hearing. | Pearson/United States contends certification is conclusive absent challenge. | Objection denied; substitution upheld. |
| Whether the acts occurred within the scope of employment | Zuzul contends acts were personal vendetta outside scope. | United States maintains acts occurred during work and relate to duties as a VAMC doctor. | Acts were within course of authorized duties; certification stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (Supreme Court 1995) (scope review allowed; certification conclusive unless challenged)
- Gutierrez de Martinez v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 111 F.3d 1148 (4th Cir. 1997) (limits on challenge to certification; burden on plaintiff)
- Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819 (4th Cir. 2000) (desirability of quick scope-of-employment resolution; evidentiary standards)
- Maron v. United States, 126 F.3d 317 (4th Cir. 1997) (consideration of work duties vs. ill will in scope analysis)
- Clemmons v. Life Ins. Co. of Ga., 274 N.C. 416 (NC Supreme Court 1968) (scope includes acts in collection of accounts; authorized duties matter)
- Wegner v. Delly-Land Delicatessen, Inc., 270 N.C. 62 ( NC Supreme Court 1967) (personal motive alone not determinative; relation to employment duties)