Case Information
*2 Before B LACKBURNE -R IGSBY , Chief Judge , B ECKWITH , E ASTERLY , M C L EESE , D EAHL , H OWARD , A LIKHAN , and S HANKER , Associate Judges .
Opinion of the court by Chief Judge B LACKBURNE -R IGSBY , with whom B ECKWITH , E ASTERLY , D EAHL , H OWARD , A LIKHAN , and S HANKER , Associate Judges, join.
Opinion by Associate Judge M C L EESE , concurring in part and dissenting in part, at page 42.
B LACKBURNE -R IGSBY , Chief Judge
: This case is before the court on a certified
question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second
Circuit”). The certified question requests clarification of the District of Columbia’s
respondeat superior
case law, which involves determining when an employer should
be liable for the actions of an employee. The Second Circuit seeks this clarification
as it relates to allegedly defamatory statements that then-President Donald J. Trump
made in 2019 concerning E. Jean Carroll in response to her public allegations that
he sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York
City in the 1990s.
Carroll v. Trump
,
I. Certified Question of Law and Short Answers A. The Certified Question of Law from the Second Circuit Under the laws of the District [of Columbia], were the allegedly libelous public statements made, during his term in office, by the President of the United States, denying allegations of misconduct, with regards to events prior to that term of office, within the scope of his employment as President of the United States?
In certifying this question, the Second Circuit sought clarification from this court of the District of Columbia’s law of respondeat superior . Id. at 774-81. In accepting the certified question, this court reframed the certified question as follows:
[P]art one [of the certified question] asks this court to determine the scope of the President of the United States’ employment, therefore the parties’ briefs should address whether this court should opine on that aspect of the certified question; and part two [of the certified question] asks this court to clarify its respondeat superior case precedents, therefore the parties are further directed to address the extent, if any, to which this court’s respondeat superior case precedents are unclear as applied to this case, and how this court might clarify or modify those precedents to help resolve the present dispute.
Order, Trump v. Carroll , No. 22-SP-745 (Oct. 25, 2022). [1]
We answer our reformulation of the Second Circuit’s certified question in reverse order, first addressing the request to clarify District of Columbia law, and second explaining why we decline to address the factbound question of whether the former President was acting within the scope of his employment.
B. Short Answers to the Certified Question of Law 1. As we explain more fully below, the District of Columbia generally adheres to the Restatement (Second) of Agency’s statement of respondeat superior law as expressed in § 228. Specifically, the District of Columbia has adopted the framework as set forth in § 228(1)(a)-(d) and § 228(2) defining the scope of employment for which an employer may be held liable. See Moseley v. Second New St. Paul Baptist Church , 534 A.2d 346, 348 n.4 (D.C. 1987) (adopting § 228’s definition of the scope of employment). The District of Columbia is not an “internalization” jurisdiction. Further, we do not adopt a categorical reading of Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger ,444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
2. Under the law of the District of Columbia, and on the record before us, whether the President of the United States was acting within the scope of his employment is a question for the factfinder. The record provided to this court would not entitle either party to judgment as a matter of law under any of the standards that govern motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, or motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Further, there may also have been additional, critical facts elicited since the certification of the question of law to this court during the completion of discovery, in particular during the deposition of the former President. It is not at all clear to us that the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, commonly referred to as the “Westfall Act,” 28 U.S.C. § 2679 et seq. , requires an answer to this scope-of-employment question as a matter of law at this preliminary stage. To the extent that it does, then we have no special expertise in answering that question and merely clarify our law to aid the Second Circuit or the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in doing so. Cf., e.g. , Lyons v. Brown , 158 F.3d 605, 609 (1st Cir. 1998) (“Federal law determines whether a person is a federal employee and defines the nature and scope of [the person’s] official responsibilities.”).
II. Background A brief overview of the factual and procedural background of this case is helpful to provide context to the certified question we have been asked to answer.
In November 2019, E. Jean Carroll filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York—the state’s trial court. In her complaint, Ms. Carroll alleged, inter alia , that she was sexually assaulted and raped by Mr. Trump in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman’s department store in New York City in the 1990s. On June 21, 2019, New York Magazine published online an excerpt from Ms. Carroll’s book in which she publicly detailed her account of the assault for the first time. Ms. Carroll’s book was published on July 2, 2019.
In response to the excerpt published in New York Magazine , that same day, then-President Trump issued a public statement denying the assault allegations and questioning Ms. Carroll’s motives for making a public allegation. The following day, in a statement directly to reporters, he further denied the allegations. Then, two days later, he again denied Ms. Carroll’s allegations in an interview with The Hill . Ms. Carroll contends that the content of these statements by the former President operated to defame her by falsely denying the allegations as well as falsely implying that she invented the allegations to make money, increase her book sales, or carry out a political agenda. [2]
Once litigation was underway, the United States invoked the federal Westfall
Act, which immunizes federal employees from personal liability and allows for
potential recovery against the United States if liability is found.
See
28 U.S.C.
§ 2679
et seq.
The Westfall Act allows the Attorney General to certify that “the
defendant employee was acting within the scope of his [or her] office or employment
at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose.”
Id.
§ 2679(d)(2). For
litigation that begins in state court, the Attorney General’s certification operates to
remove the case from state court to the federal district court and to substitute the
United States as the only defendant.
Id.
It is this procedural mechanism that
immunizes the federal employee from personal liability by allowing recovery only
from the United States.
See Carroll
, 49 F.4th at 765-66. Recovery against the
United States is possible because, for certain torts, the United States has waived its
sovereign immunity from litigation under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”),
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Yet for certain torts such as defamation, for which the United
States has
not
waived its sovereign immunity under the FTCA, substitution of the
United States as the defendant bars any recovery.
See id.
§ 2680(h) (outlining the
exceptions to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity, including the torts of libel
and slander, i.e., defamation). The Attorney General’s certification is subject to
judicial review.
Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno
,
Pursuant to these procedures, the Attorney General, through his designate, certified that then-President Trump was acting within the scope of his employment, and therefore immune from personal liability under the Westfall Act. Ms. Carroll opposed the United States’ motion to substitute itself as the sole defendant in the litigation, challenging the underlying certification on two grounds: she argued that 1) a President is not an employee within the meaning of the Westfall Act; and 2) then-President Trump was not acting within the scope of his employment when he made the allegedly defamatory statements.
The timing of when the court must address the scope-of-employment question is somewhat different here than in a traditional civil suit because the court is being asked to determine whether an individual was an employee acting within the scope of their employment prior to discovery rather than after the full development of the record on that question. More importantly, the answer to the scope-of-employment question could have the effect of ending the case before a merits determination is made because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for the tort of defamation. This is unlike cases that involve torts for which the United States has waived sovereign immunity because substitution under the Westfall Act does not bar litigation of the merits of the plaintiff’s claim or otherwise impede a successful plaintiff’s ability to recover from the United States. However, because Ms. Carroll’s litigation involves the alleged tort of defamation, for which the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity, substitution of the United States prevents a federal court from maintaining the litigation and consequentially bars Ms. Carroll from recovering in any capacity because her case would be dismissed should the motion to substitute be granted.
Ms. Carroll’s litigation was removed to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The district court agreed with Ms. Carroll and
denied the United States’ motion to substitute on both grounds Ms. Carroll raised.
Carroll v. Trump
,
A split panel of the Second Circuit disagreed with the district court’s determination that the President is not an employee of the government under the Westfall Act. The Second Circuit further disagreed with the district court that even if the President were deemed a government employee under the Westfall Act, the President was not acting within the scope of his employment. See Carroll , 49 F.4th at 761. The Second Circuit concluded that the former President was “an employee of the Government” within the meaning of the Westfall Act. Id. at 72. Additionally, the Second Circuit concluded that the parties conceded the law of the District of Columbia—not New York—applied to determine whether the former President acted within the scope of his employment. Id. at 766 & n.6. The Second Circuit, after a review of our case precedents, expressed uncertainty about how the District of Columbia assesses the scope of an employee’s employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior and whether the District of Columbia employs a traditional view as expressed in the Restatement, an “internalization view,” or a “mixed type of analysis.” [3] Id. at 774-76.
Likewise, the Second Circuit expressed uncertainty about whether Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger , a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”), applied District of Columbia respondeat superior law consistent with our clarifications herein in its decision immunizing a congressman from liability under the Westfall Act for allegedly defamatory comments made while speaking to the press. Id. at 779-80.
The Second Circuit certified the question to this court. We accepted the certified question of law pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-723(a) and reframed the certified question to emphasize that “this court might clarify or modify [our respondeat superior ] precedents.” We further voted sua sponte for the en banc court to hear this matter. [4]
III. The Respondeat Superior Doctrine in the District of Columbia The principal question we are presented with by the certified question as reformulated by this court is whether, and to what extent, this jurisdiction adheres to the “traditional view” of the scope of employment inquiry of respondeat superior set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228, or whether this jurisdiction adheres to the internalization approach to the scope of employment inquiry. On this principal question, we affirm our precedents and confirm that the District of Columbia generally adheres to the analytical framework of the scope of employment inquiry set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228(1)-(2):
(1) Conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if, but only if:
(a) it is of the kind [the person] is employed to perform;
(b) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits;
(c) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master, and
(d) if force is intentionally used by the servant against another, the use of force is not unexpectable by the master.
(2) Conduct of a servant is not within the scope of employment if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master.
Rest. (2d) of Agency § 228. [5]
This court’s approval of the Restatement (Second) of Agency’s formulation
of
respondeat superior
liability dates back to
District of Columbia v. Davis
, where
we approvingly cited to § 228 of the Restatement (without quoting specific text) in
support of the proposition that the “scope and course of employment means the range
or extent of the work to be performed by an employee within the limitations of his
authority.” 386 A.2d 1195, 1203 (D.C. 1978). A few years later, in
Johnson v.
Weinberg
(
Johnson I
), we expressly quoted § 228(1)-(2) for the general definition
of “scope of employment,” although our decision in that case only relied on a general
application of the Restatement’s principles; we did not apply the Restatement as a
strict test to be satisfied.
In consideration of this long and consistent history of citing to and quoting the Restatement (Second) of Agency, we confirm that the District of Columbia has formally adopted the language of § 228(1)-(2) to define the scope of employment, but we depart from its language or otherwise construe some of its language more broadly at times. In our view, this approach to the Restatement’s formulation of the scope of employment inquiry provides the proper allocation of risk and financial responsibility to the employer for the conduct of their employee. Further, this approach strikes the proper balance of the equities at hand, expanding the allocation of costs to employers beyond those torts that were the product of specific direction, but without holding employers liable for all torts fairly regarded as risks of their business—i.e., the internalization approach.
Our answer to the reformulated certified question requires a broader discussion of the doctrinal concepts in the Restatement to distinguish between the provisions to which we more closely adhere and those which our cases interpret more expansively. We also address other provisions of the Restatement that expound upon the concepts set forth initially in § 228. See Rest. (2d) of Agency § 228 cmt. [a] (“Sections 229-236 state the circumstances which determine whether acts can be considered to be within the scope of employment.”).
Before discussing each provision of § 228 in turn, we also affirm that under
our case precedents, whether an employee was acting within the scope of
employment is ordinarily a fact-intensive question for the factfinder, and as such is
not subject to determination as a matter of law in resolving a motion to dismiss or a
motion for summary judgment.
Axman v. Wash. Gaslight Co.
,
Section 228(1)(a) of the Restatement (Second) of Agency provides that an employer is liable for an employee’s tortious conduct in circumstances where the conduct is “of the kind [the person] is employed to perform.” This language plainly encompasses an employee’s performance of their stated job duties. However, an employer’s liability extends beyond that narrow category of conduct. For example, the scope of an individual employee’s job functions is not so narrowly construed as to cover only the conduct expressly authorized. Id. § 229(2). [7] Many employees have informal responsibilities that are as integral to their employment as their formal responsibilities, and therefore are just as sound of a basis for applying respondeat superior liability. See, e.g. , id. § 229(2)(a) (considering “whether or not the act is one commonly done by such servants”); id. § 229(2)(f) (considering “whether or not the master has reason to expect that such an act will be done”).
More than that, an employee’s conduct falls within the meaning of § 228(1)(a) if that conduct is either “of the same general nature as” or “incidental to” the conduct authorized so as to be within the scope of employment. See id. § 299(1). As to whether the conduct was “of the same general nature as” the conduct authorized, we view this language from § 229(1) as reflecting an inquiry into the similarity between the tortious conduct and an individual employee’s job functions akin to a plain language reading of § 228(1)(a).
As to whether the tortious conduct was “incidental to” the authorized conduct,
we view this language as an inquiry into whether the tortious conduct was
undertaken
in service of
carrying out an employee’s job function. Along these lines,
in
Davis
, this court upheld a finding of
respondeat superior
liability against the
District of Columbia for an injury resulting from the discharge of an officer’s service
revolver that he was required to carry on his person.
In discussing this requirement, some of our case precedents have understood
this to be a foreseeability inquiry, asking whether “the conduct in question is so
unforeseeable as to make it unfair to charge the [employer] with responsibility,”
Penn Central
,
We clarify that the District of Columbia has not adopted an internalization theory, but rather this court’s prior use of the language of foreseeability reflects a broadening of the permissible nexus between an employee’s conduct and their job responsibilities beyond a narrow reading of § 228(1)(a) of the Restatement. Accordingly, our case precedents depart from the Restatement by authorizing victims of intentional torts that do not involve the use of force to prove that the tortious conduct was of the kind the employee was authorized to perform on a narrow theory of foreseeability—that the conduct was “incidental to” the conduct authorized. [8] Cf. Rest. (2d) of Agency § 228(1)(d) (establishing a foreseeability requirement for torts involving the use of force that are not “unexpectable”). [9]
Utilizing a foreseeability analysis can aid in establishing the nexus between the tortious conduct and the terms of the employment that justifies allocating the costs of the tortious conduct to the employer. We do not view adoption of such a foreseeability analysis as an abandonment of the Restatement because the Restatement puts forth foreseeability (in slightly different terms) as a factor to consider when determining whether the conduct falls within § 228(1)(a). See id. § 229(2)(f) (“whether or not the master has reason to expect that such an act will be done”).
However, this expansion is not boundless and the determination of whether
the conduct gives rise to liability remains tied to the underlying nature of the
employment.
Cf. Penn Central
,
B. Whether the Conduct “Occurs Substantially Within the Authorized Time and Space Limits” Section 228(1)(b) of the Restatement (Second) of Agency limits an employer’s liability to the employee’s conduct that “occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits.” Present in this formulation are three distinct considerations. The first is that the employee’s tortious conduct “occurs substantially within the authorized time . . . limits,” which is a temporal element. Rest. (2d) of Agency § 228(1)(b). Second is that the employee’s tortious conduct “occurs substantially within the authorized . . . space limits,” which is a spatial element. Id. Third, inherent to both of these formulations is that the conduct need only be “substantially” within the authorized time and space limits. Id. We have previously adopted § 228(1)(b) [11] as a part of the Restatement definition of scope of employment. We take the opportunity now to further discuss how our cases have implicitly applied § 228(1)(b). We are conscious of the fact that the parties in this certified question have divergent views of the authorized time and space of limits of the employment of an elected official.
Generally, an employer is at risk of being held vicariously liable for their
employee’s conduct only while that employee is on duty at their job site, subject to
considering the specific circumstances of the employment.
[12]
The employee’s
conduct does not need to be absolutely within the authorized space and time of the
employment, only “substantially,” which counsels against a strict understanding of
where and when an employee was on duty. Rest. (2d) of Agency § 228(1)(b).
Defining the authorized space and time of employment is more difficult for
employees who are by the nature of their job “always on duty.” In this context, it is
harder to clearly define what may be the authorized time and space limits of that
employment. We do not endeavor to address all of these circumstances, recognizing
again that this remains a fact-intensive inquiry resistant to categorical dispositions.
What our precedents reflect about this issue, however, is the principle that the
employer is generally only liable under
respondeat superior
for their “always on
duty” employee while the employee is sufficiently engaged with their employment.
See, e.g.
,
Bamidele
,
Our case precedents have most directly addressed the question of when an
always-on-duty employee is, in fact, acting within the scope of employment in the
context of police officers. Police officers are, by nature of their employment,
considered always on duty, but may be colloquially referred to as “off duty” when
not working their primary shift or otherwise actively engaged in police work.
See Davis
,
C. Whether the Conduct “Is Actuated, at Least in Part, by a Purpose to Serve the Master” Section 228(1)(c) of the Restatement (Second) of Agency requires that the employee’s tortious conduct was “actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master.” This formulation provides for three separate elements, all of which a plaintiff must prove. The first two are set forth plainly in the Restatement’s text. First, the employee must have been “actuated . . . by a purpose to serve the master.” This is the “purpose” element. Second, the employee need only have been actuated “at least in part” by that purpose. This is the “quantum” element. The third element, however, is not plainly stated in the Restatement, yet is intrinsic to the inquiry in our cases: at what moment—or moments—of time do we consider the employee’s motivation? This is the “timing” element.
1. Purpose Element
The purpose element is an inquiry into the employee’s state of mind to
determine whether the employee was, in fact, motivated by a purpose to serve their
employer. Our focus is on the subjective state of mind of the tortfeasor-employee,
notwithstanding our statement in
Johnson II
that “the test for scope of employment
is an objective one, based on all the facts and circumstances.”
Johnson II
, 518 A.2d
at 991.
[13]
As a part of this purpose inquiry, we consider direct and circumstantial
evidence of the employee’s state of mind.
[14]
See
Rest. (2d) of Agency § 235 cmt. [a]
(“It is the state of the servant’s mind which is material. Its external manifestations
are important only as evidence.”);
see also Blair
,
Likewise, we have viewed it as relevant, at least in part, whether there was a
prior history between the tortfeasor and the victim.
Coron
,
of respondeat superior .”). However, in some contexts such as the Westfall Act, a finding that the employee was acting within the scope of their employment may immunize them from liability. In such a context, it would be appropriate to consider evidence suggesting the employee has an incentive to describe their conduct as motivated by a purpose to serve their employer to immunize themselves from personal liability. Likewise, in other contexts, employees may be incentivized to describe their conduct as solely motivated by a personal purpose, to preserve their relationship with their employer. It is also appropriate to consider evidence tending to establish or disprove this motivation.
[16]
See also Dilli v. Johnson
,
Inquiries into whether there was a prior employee-victim relationship allow
the factfinder to make inferences about whether the tortfeasor-employee, for
example, used their employment as a mere opportunity to act on a personal
grievance. Conversely, inquiries into whether the tort was the outgrowth of a job-
related controversy allow the factfinder to make inferences about whether the
employee was in fact responding to an employment-related circumstance, despite
the tortious conduct appearing as if it were personally motivated. As such, were the
inquiry limited to the tortious conduct itself without the underlying context, the
characteristics of that conduct might misleadingly appear to be personal in nature,
especially where the underlying conduct is either discouraged or expressly
prohibited by the employer.
See Boykin
,
2. Quantum Element
Section 228(1)(c) of the Restatement (Second) requires that the employee
have been motivated “at least in part” by a purpose to serve the employer. This is
the quantum element. We clarify our formal adoption of the standard that an
employer will be held liable so long as the employee was motivated “at least in part”
to serve the employer’s interests consistent with § 228(1)(c) of the Restatement
(Second). This “at least in part” requirement has long been recognized in the District
of Columbia. For example, even prior to the Restatement (Second), this court
explained that
respondeat superior
liability could be based on an employee who
“partially [acted] in furtherance of the [employer’s] business.”
Penn Central
, 398
A.2d at 31. And in our most recent case,
Blair
, we affirmed our application of the
“at least in part” standard, explaining that “an employee’s actions need not be wholly
in furtherance of the employer’s business” and “the conduct need only be in part to
serve the employer’s interests.”
The more challenging question, however, is what minimum quantum of
purpose to serve the employer is sufficient to hold an employer liable. The “at least
in part” standard strikes us as a minimum requirement for the quantum of purpose
that necessitates at least some discernable purpose to serve the employer. This
standard does not foreclose that an employee could be concurrently motivated by a
personal purpose.
See Hechinger Co.
,
However, as we have recognized in other cases, the Restatement (Second) also
provides that if the employee’s conduct is “too little actuated” by that purpose, then
the employee’s conduct would be outside of the scope of employment.
See, e.g.
,
Johnson I
,
We recognize that the pattern jury instructions in the District of Columbia do not incorporate the “too little actuated” standard. See, e.g. , Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 80 (1968 ed.) (using terms “in whole or in part” and “any”), No. 82 (using term “in whole or in part”), and No. 6.02 (rev. ed. 2012) (using terms “at least partly” and “solely”). However, pattern jury instructions are “neither the law nor necessarily a correct statement thereof.” Edelen v. United States , 560 A.2d 527, 529 n.9 (D.C. 1989). Likewise, although other jurisdictions may not have expressly endorsed the application of the “too little actuated” standard to qualify the “at least in part” standard, we view our commitment of this consideration to the factfinder as consistent with the policy judgment of this jurisdiction to commit the ultimate question of liability to the factfinder. [17] As such, we view it as consistent with our precedents to have the factfinder determine whether it is sensible to hold an employer liable in light of how actuated the employee was by a purpose to serve their employer.
While we have affirmed that the District of Columbia retains the “too little actuated” standard, we do not parse out an exact threshold at which an employee was “actuated, at least in part” by a purpose to serve the employer, but “too little actuated” for their conduct to be within the scope of employment. Instead, this court’s decisions have consistently entrusted this question to the factfinder to decide whether, upon a showing that the employee acted with at least a partial purpose to serve their employer’s interest, that purpose was not too little actuated. In other words, the factfinder must determine that an employee’s partial purpose to serve their employer was more than an insignificant interest. It is a balancing and weighing of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, to determine whether the quantum of purpose is more than insignificant.
3. Timing Element
In the case of intentional torts, an additional “timing” element arises, requiring us to address what the pertinent timeframe is for assessing an employee’s purpose. [18] This raises two subsidiary questions. First, what scope of circumstances should the factfinder consider in determining the employee’s purpose? Second, when must the employee possess the requisite purpose for the employer to be held liable? Our case law has not defined specifically what period of time is relevant, recognizing that a categorical rule would be incompatible with our general principle that respondeat superior is a factbound inquiry and different factual circumstances present different moments in time that inform that inquiry. However, we provide the following guidance from our case law in recognition of the fact that the former President’s allegedly defamatory statements were made in different contexts (i.e., a press release, a statement to reporters, and a statement during an interview), and accordingly what may be true of the former President’s purpose in making one statement may not be true as to another statement.
First, we conclude that the temporal scope of circumstances the factfinder
should consider to discern the employee’s purpose in acting should be construed
quite broadly.
See, e.g.
,
Dilli
,
Second, we conclude that the employee need not possess the requisite purpose to serve the employer at the precise moment of time in which the tort was committed, but rather respondeat liability can be established where the employee possessed the requisite purpose in the moments preceding the commission of the tort when warranted by the factual context. Our case law does not subscribe to the view that the factfinder must look at the entire course of conduct as the Restatement (Third) gravitates towards. [19] Neither do our cases narrowly look at only the moment in which the tort was committed, recognizing that some context is important for the factfinder to properly weigh the evidence. Such a narrow reading disregards that the timing inquiry ultimately relates back to the underlying “conduct” of the servant— not just the tortious conduct. It also fails to capture the total mosaic of the employee’s potentially shifting motivations and whether there was an employer- related impetus to the employee’s conduct at one time that fell out. Accordingly, on this question, we acknowledge that our case precedents expand somewhat on a narrow reading of the Restatement (Second).
Examining only the split second moment of the actual commission of the
tort—absent some context—could unfairly limit employer liability and is otherwise
inconsistent with our case precedents.
See Argenbright Sec.
,
* * *
We emphasize that each section of the Restatement (Second) represents a distinct inquiry that the factfinder must undertake and a plaintiff must satisfy. See Rest. (2d) of Agency § 228 (using the word “and” conjunctively to describe the factors for respondeat superior ). [20] It is not sufficient that an employee was authorized to act in the manner they did, or that the conduct, being authorized, was within the time and space of the employee’s general employment—the factfinder must specifically consider whether, in the moments surrounding the employee’s conduct, there is evidence that the employee was, in fact, motivated by the purpose of serving the master. [21] However, as previously cautioned, in many cases not all elements outlined in the Restatement framework will be subject to dispute.
D. Whether, if Force Is Intentionally Used by the Employee Against Another, the Use of Force Is Not Unexpectable by the Employer As it concerns the intentional use of force, § 228(1)(d) provides that respondeat superior liability is limited to circumstances where “the use of force is not unexpectable by the [employer].” Our case precedents and our doctrine of respondeat superior do not diverge when the tort at issue is based on the use of force. Accordingly, when considering whether the use of force was “unexpectable,” the factfinder should undertake the same foreseeability analysis for intentional torts considered under § 228(1)(a) of the Restatement (Second), discussed in Section III.A, supra . [22] We view this required adherence to a foreseeability element for torts involving the use of force as consistent with our case precedents, including Dilli , Johnson II , and Hechinger Co. , and not the pronouncement of a new standard as it concerns tort liability for the use of force.
IV. This Court Does Not Adopt a Categorical Reading of the
District of Columbia Circuit’s Decision in
Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger
,
We note that Ballenger disclaims that it was creating such a categorical rule. See id. at 666. Its ultimate conclusion that Congressman Ballenger was acting within the scope of his employment rested on undisputed, affirmative evidence in the record that his purpose behind making the allegedly defamatory statements was to serve his constituents and otherwise carry out his legislative responsibilities. [23] Id. at 665-66. Accordingly, we decline to adopt a categorical reading of Ballenger because, as previously explained, the District of Columbia’s precedents have consistently adhered to a fact-bound inquiry to determine whether the conduct of an employee is within the scope of employment. We have never adopted a rule that has determined that a certain type of conduct is per se within (or outside of) the scope of employment, and we decline to do so now.
V. Conclusion In sum, we answer the certified question by affirming that the District of Columbia generally adheres to § 228 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency’s traditional view of the scope-of-employment inquiry of respondeat superior , although our case precedents construe more expansively some of the concepts set forth therein.
A.2d at 24 (“The court may enter judgment as a matter of law only where, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, ‘the probative facts
are undisputed and where reasonable minds can draw but one inference from them.’”
(quoting
Johnson I
,
In response to the part of the certified question requesting that we define the scope of employment of the President of the United States, we decline to do so. That is a fact-intensive question for the factfinder and cannot be resolved as a matter of law in either party’s favor on the record before us. We do not adopt a categorical reading of Ballenger v. Council on American Islamic Relations that resolves the scope-of-employment inquiry for elected officials on a per se basis. As such, we leave for the Second Circuit or Southern District of New York to resolve whether the former President was acting within the scope of his employment in the first instance, consistent with District of Columbia law, as clarified herein.
We direct the Clerk of the Court to certify this answer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to the parties.
So ordered. M C L EESE , Associate Judge , concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the court’s short answers to the certified question, and I agree with much of what is said in the opinion for the court. I disagree, however, with the court’s conclusions on three specific topics. I therefore respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
I. Foreseeability
I agree with the court’s holding that foreseeability should be required for all intentional torts, not only for those intentional torts involving the use of force. Supra at 17-19. In my view, however, adopting that approach narrows rather than broadens the scope of employer liability under the Second Restatement of Agency, by turning a factor into a requirement. See Restatement (Second) of Agency §§ 228(1)(d) (requiring that intentional torts involving use of force not be “unexpectable”), 229(2)(f) (generally, whether employer “has reason to expect that such an act will be done” is factor to be considered in determining whether act is “so similar to or incidental to the conduct authorized as to be within the scope of employment”) (Am. L. Inst. 1958).
More generally, I also agree that conduct can potentially be within the scope of employment if the conduct is either of the same general nature as authorized conduct or incidental to authorized conduct. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 229(1). Contrary to the apparent suggestion in the opinion for the court, supra at 17-19, I view the question whether conduct falls within the latter category as related to but distinct from, rather than equivalent to, the question whether the conduct was foreseeable.
II. “Too Little” Purpose
I would discard as confusing and unnecessary the concept of conduct that is “too little actuated” by a purpose to benefit the employer. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228(2). That language appears to be inconsistent with the principle stated in the preceding subsection of § 228 of the Second Restatement that conduct can be within the scope of employment if “it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose” to benefit the employer. Id. § 228(1)(c); see also id . § 236 cmt. b (“The fact that the predominant motive of the servant is to benefit himself or a third person does not prevent the act from being within the scope of employment. If the purpose of serving the master’s business actuates the servant to any appreciable extent , the master is subject to liability if the act otherwise is within the service . . . .”) (emphasis added); id. § 219 cmt. e (listing exceptional circumstances in which employer may be liable for torts of employees “acting solely for their own purposes and hence not in the scope of employment”). For that reason, the drafters of the Third Restatement discarded the phrase “too little actuated,” instead excluding from the scope of employment conduct “not intended by the employee to serve any purpose of the employer.” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 (Am. L. Inst. 2006); see also id. cmt. b (formulations in Second Restatement “are not entirely consistent; an act motivated by some purpose to serve the employer could still be ‘too little actuated’ to be within the scope of employment”) (emphasis omitted).
The drafters of the Third Restatement explained that “most cases apply the
standard stated” in the Third Restatement.
Restatement (Third) of Agency
§ 7.07
cmt. b. That appears to be an understatement. I have not found, and the opinion for
the court in this case does not cite, any decision from any other court that takes the
approach reflected in the opinion for the court: directing juries to find employers not
liable even if tortious conduct was motivated in part to benefit the employer and
otherwise would be within the scope of employment, if the jury finds that the motive
to benefit the employer was in some unspecified sense “insignificant.”
Supra
at 32-
33. To the contrary, the overwhelming weight of authority appears to support the
principle that conduct may be within the scope of employment as long as the conduct
is motivated in any part to benefit the employer.
See, e.g.
,
L.B. v. United States
, 515
P.3d 818, 822, 825 (Mont. 2022) (“at least partially motivated”; “an appreciable
extent”);
Salo v. Tyler
,
The opinion for the court suggests that the concept of “too little” purpose is
an established part of the law of this jurisdiction.
Supra
at 31-33. Because we are
sitting en banc, we would be free to discard the concept even if it were a settled part
of our law. In any event, I do not agree that the concept is a settled part of our law.
It is true that we have cited the phrase “too little actuated” in passing in a few of our
scope-of-employment cases.
See, e.g.
,
Schechter v. Merchs. Home Delivery, Inc.
,
I have found no case in which this court explicitly stated that juries should be responsible for determining whether an employee’s purpose to benefit the employer was in some sense “too little.” To the contrary, in the one case that I have found in which this court squarely focused on jury instructions on this topic, the court specifically approved an instruction that used terms such as “at least in part,” “any,” and “wholly unrelated,” and made no reference to the concept of “too little” purpose. Weinberg , 518 A.2d at 990-91 & n.11; see also Fletcher , 6 App. D.C. at 393-94 (citing similar instruction with approval). In light of the foregoing, it should not be surprising that, as the opinion for the court acknowledges, supra at 31, juries in this jurisdiction do not appear to have ever been asked to decide whether an employee’s intent to benefit the employer was in some sense “too little.”
I thus do not view this as a case in which the court is deciding to retain a settled principle of law. Rather, I view it as a case in which the court is choosing to adopt a new principle of law that is not supported by our prior decisions or by the law of other jurisdictions and that has been abandoned by the institutional author that initially wrote the confusing words on which the court relies.
The only reason the court gives for adopting its “insignificant” purpose test is that doing so will permit “the factfinder [to] determine whether it is sensible to hold an employer liable.” Supra at 32. I do not see, and the court does not explain, why it is in fact desirable to let a jury find an employer not liable for an employee’s tortious conduct that was motivated in part to benefit the employer and otherwise would be within the scope of employment, if the jury thinks that it is not “sensible” to hold the employer liable, because the employee’s motive to benefit the employer was in some unspecified sense “insignificant.” I do not understand the basis on which a jury should make such a judgment. Moreover, as previously noted, as far as I am aware no other jurisdiction burdens juries with such a responsibility.
III. Temporal Relationship Between Tortious Conduct
and Purpose to Benefit Employer
The Second Restatement seems to require that the tortious conduct itself be
intended to benefit the employer.
See Restatement (Second) of Agency
§§ 228(1)(c)
(conduct is within scope of employment if “it [i.e., the conduct] is actuated, at least
in part, by a purpose to serve the master”), 245 cmt. f (“The master, however, is
relieved from liability . . . if the servant has no intent to act on [the] master’s behalf,
although the events from which the tortious act follows arise while the servant is
acting in the employment and the servant becomes angry because of them.”). Some
older cases in this jurisdiction appear to explicitly reflect the same requirement.
See,
e.g.
,
M.J. Uline Co. v. Cashdan
,
I fully agree with the court that a jury determining whether a given allegedly tortious act was motivated to benefit an employer can appropriately consider evidence about purposes the employee had at other times, including times well before and well after the act. Supra at 34. That is different, however, from a rule that permits imposition of liability on employers for acts of an employee that are not taken with any purpose to benefit the employer but that are closely related in some way to acts that were motivated to benefit the employer. As noted, the Second Restatement seems to generally preclude such liability, as do some of our older cases. The court correctly notes, however, that at least some of our more recent cases are hard to square with that aspect of the Second Restatement. Supra at 35- 36; see, e.g. , Weinberg , 518 A.2d at 991 (“As the law has evolved, the intent or purpose criterion has become broad enough to embrace an intentional tort arising out of any dispute that was originally undertaken on the employer’s behalf.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Murphy v. Army Distaff Found., Inc. , 458 A.2d 61, 63 (D.C. 1983) (holding that jury question existed as to whether allegedly tortious act was within scope of employment, because “there is some indication that the shooting was the outgrowth of a job related encounter”).
I have my doubts about the “arising out of/outgrowth” expansion of the
approach reflected in the Second Restatement. I do not believe that this court has
ever clearly articulated a rationale for that expansion. Moreover, the court at times
has confusingly suggested that the question whether a tortious act is a direct
outgrowth of a job-related controversy goes to foreseeability rather than to whether
the employee acted with the requisite purpose to benefit the employer.
See, e.g.
,
Blair
,
The court in this case does not simply endorse the idea that conduct not intended to benefit the employer can be within the scope of employment if the conduct arises out of a job-related dispute. Rather, the court seems to me to recharacterize that idea in ways that both narrow and broaden the idea. The court appears to hold that the idea applies only if the employee had a purpose to benefit the employer in the “moments” before the allegedly tortious act at issue. Supra at 34-36. I am not aware that our prior cases have ever suggested such a tight temporal requirement, and the court does not cite any such case from this jurisdiction or any other.
On the other hand, the court does not seem to limit the idea, as our prior cases apparently do, to the outgrowth of job-related disputes. Rather, the court instead seems to adopt a general rule that even if the allegedly tortious act itself was not intended to benefit the employer, the act can be treated as within the scope of employment as long as the employee had such a motive in the moments before the act. Supra at 34-36. The court cites no decisions supporting so sweeping a view, and I am not aware of any. Moreover, the view seems to have surprising consequences. For example, consider a case in which an employee is making a delivery by car; gets out of the car to walk to a nearby home to make the delivery; happens to see a person the employee has long hated for personal reasons walking by; and goes over and punches that person in the face. Under the approach adopted by the court in this case, that conduct could be viewed as within the scope of employment (subject to the question whether it was foreseeable that the employee might get involved in a personal altercation while working).
In sum, I would follow the Second Restatement and hold that the employee’s purpose to benefit the employer must exist at the time of the allegedly tortious act.
Notes
[1] See Akhmetshin v. Browder , 275 A.3d 290, 292 (D.C. 2022) (“When considering a certified question, however, we are not limited to the designated question of law but may exercise our prerogative to frame the basic issues as we see fit for an informed decision.” (cleaned up)).
[2] Some of the allegedly defamatory statements at issue are: “She is trying to
sell a new book—that should indicate her motivation.”; “This is a woman who has
also accused other men of things, as you know.”; “I’ll say it with great respect:
Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened,
OK?” The Second Circuit noted, and we agree,
that the issue before us is totally separate from the substantive merits of
the claim underlying this defamation action. That is, in evaluating the
scope of employment issue, we do not pass judgment or express any
view as to whether Trump’s public statements were indeed defamatory
or whether the alleged sexual assault had, in fact, occurred. Those
questions, which might loom large over this case at some point, are
simply not before us in the present appeal.
Carroll
,
[3] The “traditional view” of the scope of employment inquiry, as expressed in the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228, requires, inter alia , that the employee have been “actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the [employer].” Carroll , 49 F.4th at 773. The more modern “internalization view” of the scope of employment inquiry allocates liability as a cost of doing business, thereby requiring a business to “internalize” the costs of an employee’s tortious conduct. Id. at 774. “[A] mixed type of analysis[] [is one] in which [the court] internalizes certain costs that cannot comfortably be said to be ‘for the benefit’ of the business enterprise, but are, nevertheless, described as such.” Id. at 774-75.
[4] Sitting en banc, we have the authority to “overrule a prior decision of this court or refuse to follow a decision of the United States Court of Appeals [for the District of Columbia Circuit] rendered prior to February 1, 1971.” M.A.P. v. Ryan ,285 A.2d 310 , 312 (D.C. 1971).
[5] Although the Restatement refers to a master-servant relationship, we have
previously recognized that the Restatement applies to all principal-agent
relationships, including that of an employer-employee. Accordingly, we use the
terms “employer” and “employee” consistent with the factual context in which these
appeals typically arise.
See United House of Prayer for All People v. D.C. Dep’t. of
Transp.
,
[6] If no reasonable mind could conclude that the employee was acting within
the scope of employment, the issue becomes a question of law for the judge.
See
Johnson I
,
[7] We find helpful guidance in § 229 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency, titled “Kind of Conduct Within Scope of Employment.” See Rest. (2d) of Agency § 228 cmt. [a] (explaining that other sections of the Restatement clarify the concepts initially set forth in § 228).
[8] We do not foreclose the possibility that this foreseeability analysis could be extended to all torts, including negligent (or unintentional) torts. However, we limit our discussion to intentional torts consistent with the question that has been certified to us.
[9] We maintain this limited understanding of foreseeability because unless the employee was acting under specific direction of their employer or the performance of their job duties expressly calls for the use of force, employees are not typically employed to engage in tortious conduct.
[10] This is not the same as the inquiry we discuss infra concerning whether the employee was motivated by a purpose to serve their employer, although many of the underlying considerations will be applicable to both inquiries.
[11]
E.g.
,
Moseley
,
[12] See, e.g. , Rest. (2d) of Agency §§ 233-234; id. § 233 cmt. [a] (“When [the time of employment] begins and terminates is determined by the terms of the employment and all the facts of the situation.”); id. § 233 cmt. [b]; id. § 234 cmt. [a] (“The rule as to place is dependent upon the same considerations as those relevant to time.”).
[13] Sitting en banc, we disavow the language in Johnson II that the scope-of- employment inquiry is an objective inquiry.
[14] In considering more than just the employee’s reported state of mind, we do
not suggest that this is a
partially
subjective test that considers both the employee’s
subjective state of mind
and
whether that subjective state of mind was on some level
reasonable (i.e., objective).
See, e.g.
,
District of Columbia v. Murphy
,
[15] Generally, a finding of
respondeat superior
liability will result in an
employee and employer being held jointly and severally liable given the derivative
nature of the liability.
See Smith v. District of Columbia
,
[17] Although the “too little actuated” standard may not be expressly
incorporated into the pattern jury instructions of other jurisdictions, it has not been
abandoned wholesale by other jurisdictions.
See, e.g.
,
Olson v. Connerly
, 457
N.W.2d 479, 480 (Wisc. 1990) (explaining that conduct is outside of the scope of
employment if it is either “too little actuated by a purpose to serve the employer or
if it is motivated entirely by the employee’s own purpose”). Further, even if other
jurisdictions have not explicitly anchored their scope-of-employment test to the
language of “too little actuated,” other jurisdictions still utilize a quantum framing
akin to “insignificant.”
See, e.g.
,
Bell v. VPSI, Inc.
, 205 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.
2006) (“an appreciable extent”);
Dodson v. Carlson
,
[18] As with note 8 supra , we do not foreclose the possibility that this inquiry could be applied to an unintentional (i.e., negligent) tort depending on the circumstances presented. However, we limit our discussion to intentional torts as that is the question that has been certified to us.
[19] As our cases suggest, we think consideration of the entire course of conduct rather than a narrower period of time would too broadly impose liability on employers. See Rest. (3d) of Agency § 7.07 cmt. [b] (“An independent course of conduct represents a departure from, not an escalation of, conduct involved in performing assigned work or other conduct that an employer permits or controls.”).
[20] This conjunctive reading is affirmed by the Second Restatement, which states that [t]he rule [holding that conduct by an employee too minimally motivated by a purpose to serve their employer is outside the scope of employment] applies although the servant would be authorized to do the very act done if it were done for the purpose of serving the master, and although outwardly the act appears to be done on the master’s account. Rest. (2d) of Agency § 235 cmt. [a] (emphasis added).
[21] This is not to say evidence tending to establish one of these requirements may not tend to establish another. See Rest. (2d) of Agency § 235 cmt. [a] (“If . . . the servant does the very act directed, or does the kind of act which he is authorized to perform within working hours and at an authorized place, there is an inference that he is acting within the scope of employment.”).
[22] In reaching this conclusion, we reject the limitation imposed by some other jurisdictions that an employee’s use of force is only expectable if that employee has been expressly employed to perform acts which involve the use of force. See Rest. (2d) of Agency § 245 cmt. [b]. Accordingly, in this jurisdiction, employer liability for an employee’s use of force is a coextensive inquiry as to whether the use of that force was foreseeable.
[23] In this respect, the record before the court in Ballenger is materially different than the record as certified to this court, which is disputed by the parties. Although generally the question of whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment must be resolved by a trier of fact, where no reasonable minds could differ (i.e., because the record compels only one conclusion), the court may enter judgment as a matter of law as the court did in Ballenger . See Hechinger Co. , 761