Facts
- Alma W., an 11-year-old student at Lazear Elementary School, alleged she was sexually molested by A.B., a school custodian employed by the Oakland Unified School District.
- The alleged assault occurred on school premises on a Friday afternoon, behind closed doors in the custodian’s office.
- Alma, through her guardian ad litem, sued A.B., the school principal, and the District for damages based on the alleged sexual assault.
- Alma’s amended complaint sought to impose liability on the District under respondeat superior, alleging the custodian was on duty immediately before and after the assault.
Issues
- Whether a public school district may be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior and Government Code § 815.2 for a school employee’s sexual assault of a student on campus during working hours.
- Whether the alleged sexual molestation was an act “within the scope of employment” for purposes of Government Code § 815.2.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained the District’s demurrer without leave to amend.
- The court held the District was not vicariously liable because the custodian’s sexual molestation was not within the scope of his employment under Government Code § 815.2.
- The custodian’s on-duty status and use of school premises did not establish the required connection between employment duties and the assault.
Legal Principles
- Under Government Code § 815.2, a public entity is liable for an employee’s act or omission only if it occurred within the scope of employment and would otherwise give rise to liability against the employee.
- Scope of employment for respondeat superior turns on whether the tort was an outgrowth of employment, inherent in the working environment, or a generally foreseeable consequence of the employer’s enterprise.
- Acts committed for purely personal reasons, constituting a marked departure from employment duties, are outside the scope of employment even if committed during working hours or on the employer’s premises.
- Foreseeability in respondeat superior is enterprise-based and narrower than negligence foreseeability; mere opportunity created by employment is insufficient to impose vicarious liability.
Conclusion
The court ruled that a school district cannot be held vicariously liable under Government Code § 815.2 for a custodian’s sexual assault of a student when the act is driven by purely personal motives and lacks a sufficient connection to the employee’s job duties, even if it occurs on campus during working hours.