## Facts

- Alisha Bromfield worked in the garden department at Illinois stores and was supervised by Brian Cooper, a regional manager jointly employed by Home Depot and two related “Grand” entities.
- The complaint alleged Cooper had a known history of sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and physically intimidating female subordinates, and that the employers failed to take reasonable action despite complaints and managerial observations.
- Over several years, Cooper allegedly abused and controlled Bromfield, including yelling profanities, throwing objects, interfering with breaks, and monitoring her at and outside work.
- Cooper allegedly used his supervisory authority to coerce Bromfield to accompany him on a personal trip to a wedding by threatening to fire her or reduce her hours.
- During that trip, Cooper killed Bromfield by strangulation; she was seven months pregnant, and the fetus also died.
- Bromfield’s mother, as estate administrator, sued the employers under Illinois law for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.
- The federal district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding the employers owed no duty to protect Bromfield from Cooper’s criminal acts and that the murder was unforeseeable as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois law recognizes a duty supporting negligent hiring, supervision, or retention claims against employers based on a supervisor’s known harassment and intimidation that later culminates in severe violence against a subordinate.
2. Whether the alleged murder and fetal death were within the foreseeable scope of risk created by the employers’ alleged negligence, even though the crimes occurred off premises and outside work hours.
3. Whether the supervisor’s intentional criminal acts were a superseding cause that defeats proximate causation at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged the employers owed Bromfield a duty of reasonable care in hiring, supervising, and retaining Cooper in a supervisory role.
- The court held the alleged harm fell within the foreseeable general type of harm associated with the alleged pattern of escalating harassment, intimidation, and coercive use of supervisory authority.
- The court rejected a categorical rule that off-duty, off-premises crimes necessarily fall outside an employer’s duty where the risk is tied to the employment relationship and the employer’s alleged failure to respond.
- The court held Cooper’s criminal acts were not necessarily a superseding cause as a matter of law where the employers’ alleged negligence plausibly created or increased a foreseeable risk of such harm.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois permits recovery against an employer for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention when the employer knew or should have known of an employee’s unfitness and the resulting injury is within the scope of risk created by that unfitness.
- Foreseeability in Illinois negligence law does not require prediction of the precise injury or exact manner of occurrence; it is enough that the general type of harm is reasonably foreseeable.
- An intentional or criminal act may be a superseding cause only if it is completely unforeseeable; if the defendant’s negligence created or increased the risk of that conduct, proximate cause may remain for the trier of fact.
- At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, detailed factual allegations must be accepted as true and reasonable inferences drawn in the plaintiff’s favor.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit allowed negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claims to proceed where employers allegedly ignored sustained warnings that a supervisor was abusing and coercing a subordinate, concluding that severe off-duty violence could be within the foreseeable scope of risk created by the employers’ alleged negligence and not barred as a matter of law by superseding-cause doctrine.


Anicich v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 852 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2017)