Most people just assume that employers can be held legally responsible for the actions of their employees if those actions occur at work. This type of liability is called vicarious liability and it depends on several important factors, including the status of the employee and the facts surrounding the wrongful conduct.
Statutory Indemnification Cases
Under most state statutes, a County employer can be held liable for the
acts or omissions of its employee if that act or omission occurred within
the scope of employment. That is the issue that was raised in a recent
case against Milwaukee County. Much like vicarious liability, the employer
can only be held liable if the actions meet a certain threshold.
County Department of Corrections Sued for Rape of Inmate
According to the lawsuit filed by a female inmate of the Milwaukee County
Corrections. A corrections officer, Thicklen, was accused of repeatedly
having sexual contact with a female inmate. This conduct occurred despite
the jail’s zero-tolerance policy which forbids corrections officers
from having any form of sexual contact with inmates. In fact, the evidence
showed that Thicklen was repeatedly instructed by his employer not to
engage in any sexual conduct with inmates, including receiving training.
The 19-year-old pregnant inmate that he raped sued the County and the
corrections officer. The inmate based her claim that the County was liable
for Thicklen’s actions on the fact that during each sexual assault,
Thicklen was on duty, in uniform and armed. Each of the five assaults
took place in the jail and Thicklen used his power and authority to perpetuate
the assaults.
Jury Awarded the Victim Millions
The case went to trial on the Sec. 1983 claim against Thicklen and a claim
for indemnification against the County. After the trial, the jury awarded
the rape victim $1.7 million in compensation and $5 million in punitive
damages, deciding that the assaults fell within the scope of the corrections
officer’s employment.
The Appellate Court Reversed the Verdict
The Seventh Circuit considered the case on appeal and reversed the jury
verdict. The court decided that no reasonable jury could find the rapes
occurred within in the scope of Thicklen’s employment. The sexual
assaults were not the type of conduct that he was employed to perform,
nor did they serve any purpose for the County. No reasonable jury could
have found that the sexual assaults were merely improper methods of carrying
out his employment objectives. Additionally, the victim failed to offer
any evidence that the corrections officer’s training was deficient
or that he did not adequately understand the training he received.
If you feel you have been the victim of discrimination or retaliation
in the workplace, or if you have any other questions regarding your employment
rights, please contact the experienced Birmingham employment law attorneys
at Michel | King . You can contact us either online or by calling
us at (205) 265-1880. We are here to serve you!