Maria D. (as she was referred to in court documents) claimed that late one night as she drove along the Pacific Coast Highway in Southern California, she was pulled over by an on-duty Westec Residential Security guard wearing a uniform and gun. The guard allegedly pointed a spotlight in her face, asked for her license, ordered her out of the car and put her through a sobriety test. Then, under the guise of taking her “to the station,” Maria said he drove her to a remote location and raped her.
Maria sued Westec for damages as a result of the sexual assault. But a California Court of Appeal has ruled that the employer wasn’t responsible. We’ll look at why.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
Employer Claims No Liability For Worker’s Alleged Criminal Assault
In responding to the lawsuit, Westec noted that the guard denied committing the assault. And even if he did, Westec said it couldn’t be held responsible because the guard wasn’t acting within the scope of his employment. This is because, according to Westec, the guard’s alleged actions in stopping Maria violated the company’s comprehensive written procedures concerning interactions with the public.
Westec’s policies directed security guards to limit their involvement with the public to client-related incidents, except in a physically threatening situation. Westec also prohibited personnel from following a vehicle for any reason, pointing a spotlight at a moving car, detaining or interrogating a member of the public, conducting field sobriety tests, carrying passengers in Westec vehicles or making arrests in the absence of a threat to physical safety.
Employer Not Responsible
The court agreed with Westec and threw the case out. It ruled that even if Maria’s allegations were true, Westec wasn’t liable because the assault was outside the scope of the guard’s employment.
The court pointed out, however, that the situation would have been different if there had been evidence of negligent hiring, retention or supervision of the guard by Westec. And the court hinted that the outcome might have differed if the company did not have written policies detailing unauthorized conduct by its employees or if the written policies had not been enforced.
3-Point Lawsuit Prevention Checklist
As this case shows, when an on-duty employee commits a crime, you will not automatically be held responsible. But you can face potential liability if a jury concludes you were negligent in hiring, supervising or retaining the worker. Here are some precautions to take:
- Conduct background checks. It’s important to check out all job applicants, particularly those who will interact with the public. Look into prior employment, review credit histories, verify professional degrees and licenses, search DMV records and check for criminal convictions.
- Have written policies and job descriptions. Specify job responsibilities in detail and spell out the kinds of contact with the public that are and are not permitted.
- Monitor employees and discipline violators. Negligent supervision claims can be triggered if an employee commits a crime that you could have reasonably foreseen and you failed to implement proper controls. If you discover a possible problem with a worker, promptly investigate and take disciplinary action so that you’re not accused of retaining an employee who should have been fired.