The California Tort Claims Act requires public employers to defend and indemnify their employees for third-party claims arising out of acts within the scope of employment. Does that mean public employers must defend and indemnify an employee against a sexual harassment lawsuit?
 |
Student Sues for Sexual Assault
Igor Daza worked as a guidance counselor and advisor for Los Angeles Southwest College (LASC), a school within the Los Angeles Community College District. He provided educational and emotional counseling for students. He was assigned to Jazmyne Goodwin as a counselor.
On May 3, 2011, Goodwin went to Daza’s office to discuss her classes. She alleged that the following then occurred. Daza closed the door, grabbed her cell phone, and looked at her pictures. He said, “I like the one with your nipple ring. I am going to send the picture to myself,” and then sent the picture to his cell phone.
When she tried to leave, he grabbed her wrist and pulled her to him. She pushed him away, and he said, “If you don’t want me to touch you, maybe you want me to lick you.” She said, “No, I want to leave,” and told him she had a boyfriend. He blocked her from leaving and then touched and kissed her. He asked if he could see her nipple ring. She pushed him, and he eventually let her leave the office. He then followed her to her car.
On May 31, 2012, Daza resigned and received a $73,000 severance bonus.
Goodwin sued the district and Daza for sexually harassing and molesting her. The complaint included claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, assault, sexual harassment, gender violence, false imprisonment, and negligent sexual abuse. Daza asked the district to defend him.
Following the district’s refusal to defend him, Daza paid for his own defense and filed a cross-complaint denying the allegations of sexual assault. He also sought indemnity and reimbursement for his defense.
The district settled Goodwin’s lawsuit, and Goodwin dismissed the complaint against both the district and Daza with prejudice (meaning she couldn’t file a later suit against them over the same matter).
The district asked the court to dismiss Daza’s cross-complaint without a trial. It reasoned that his claim for indemnity failed because Goodwin settled and dismissed her lawsuit with prejudice, so he wasn’t required to pay any claim or judgment. Further, according to the district, Daza’s claim for reimbursement for his defense failed because his alleged conduct fell outside the scope of his employment.
Although Daza acknowledged his indemnity claim was moot in light of Goodwin’s settlement and dismissal of her lawsuit, he argued that his claim for defense was valid because (1) there was no allegation that his conduct fell outside the scope of his employment and (2) there had been no factual determination that he committed the acts Goodwin alleged.
The trial court dismissed Daza’s cross-complaint on the grounds that the allegations in Goodwin’s lawsuit demonstrated that he was acting outside the scope of his employment.
Read more about the case and its impact on California employers.