## Facts

- Tad Brenden worked for the City of Billings at the Billings Airport during two periods: January 2004 to March 2006, and November 2012 to November 2016.
- Michael Glancy was Brenden’s supervisor during Brenden’s employment with the City, and Brenden and Glancy had several disagreements.
- After leaving City employment in November 2016, Brenden applied for a job with Montana Rail Link (MRL).
- As part of its hiring process, MRL contacted Glancy for a reference check; Glancy provided a positive reference, and MRL hired Brenden.
- On the weekend between Brenden’s last day with the City and his start date at MRL, Glancy submitted an anonymous complaint to MRL accusing Brenden of stealing City property (including uniform badges).
- MRL contacted Glancy again, calling him as Brenden’s former supervisor to ask about the anonymous complaint.
- Glancy confirmed the accusation to MRL, stating Brenden had stolen City property, without telling MRL that he was the anonymous complainant.
- The next day, MRL terminated Brenden.
- Brenden sued the City for tortious interference with business relations and other tort claims, alleging the City was vicariously liable for Glancy’s conduct under respondeat superior.
- The City moved for summary judgment, arguing Glancy’s actions were outside the scope of employment; the district court granted the motion.
- Brenden appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that Glancy was not acting within the scope of his employment when he communicated with MRL about Brenden’s alleged theft, defeating the City’s potential vicarious liability on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City and remanded.
- The Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed on whether Glancy’s communications to MRL were within the scope of his employment, including whether they were incidental to conduct the City implicitly authorized as part of Glancy’s supervisory role.
- The Court did not decide whether Glancy acted within the scope of employment; it held that the record permitted competing inferences and the issue should not have been resolved as a matter of law at summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s torts committed within the scope of employment.
- Montana’s scope-of-employment analysis looks to whether the conduct is tied to the employee’s work and may include acts that are not expressly authorized if they are incidental to explicitly or implicitly authorized duties.
- An employee’s wrongful or intentional conduct is not automatically outside the scope of employment; the connection to employment duties and context can still permit vicarious liability.
- Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; when reasonable minds can differ on scope of employment based on the evidence, the issue is generally for the fact-finder.

## Conclusion

Because Glancy’s challenged statements arose from an employment-related reference/verification context in which MRL contacted him as Brenden’s supervisor, the Montana Supreme Court held that a fact-finder could reasonably view the conduct as incidental to implicitly authorized supervisory duties; accordingly, the Court reversed summary judgment for the City and remanded for further proceedings.


Tad Brenden v. City of Billings, 399 Mont. 352 (2020)