## 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

1. 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.
2. 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.


Alma W. v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 123 Cal. App. 3d 133, 176 Cal. Rptr. 287 (Ct. App. 1981)