It is well known that employers are generally vicariously liable for the conduct of their employees, if the employee’s conduct occurs within the scope of their duties.  A question that hasn’t been answered in Minnesota is whether that same standard applies to a state employer.  That question was answered in Sterry v. Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Sterry v. Minn. Dept. of Corrections

In the case, the plaintiff was an inmate at the Moose Lake Correctional Facility.  A female corrections officer supervised the plaintiff while he worked in the kitchen at the correctional facility.  In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the officer frequently made sexually suggestive faces and remarks towards him while he worked.  The plaintiff alleged that later in 2018, he was sexually assaulted by the officer while conducting inventory in a supply room.  The plaintiff filed suit against the DOC for various tort claims under a theory of vicarious liability.  The district court dismissed the claims for vicarious liability, finding that the State was immune from liability under the Minnesota Tort Claims Act.

The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed.  That brought the matter to the Minnesota Supreme Court to decide under what circumstances would a state employer face vicarious liability for an intentional tort under the Minnesota State Tort Claims Act, and whether the plaintiff alleged fact sufficient to show that the DOC could be held vicariously liable.

In its analysis, the Court reviewed the Act, which states:

The state will pay compensation for injury to or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by an act or omission of an employee of the state while acting within the scope of office or employment . . . under circumstances where the state, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function.

In analyzing the phrase “scope of office or employment,” the Court found it meant that “a state employee must be working as an agent or representative and performing duties or tasks assigned to them lawfully by their supervisor” when the tortious act occurs.  This ran contrary to the state’s interpretation of the language, which would require the employee to only be performing lawful activities when the tort occurs.  The Court found that such an interpretation would lead to the state never being found liable, as any tortious act would be outside the scope of employment.

The Court found that the Act was “explicit in creating liability for state employers ‘under circumstances where the state, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant,’” thus making the state equal to privately-owned businesses.  As such, the state could be held liable for tortious acts of its employees.

As the plaintiff was able to meet the minimal standards for pleading claims against both the state and the officer, the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

We can’t say that this one comes as much of a surprise.  Employers should always be under the impression that the acts of their employees could lead to their own liability.  This is one of the many reasons why quality hiring and thorough supervision are so important in the workplace.  If you, or your organization, need assistance with hiring issues, or employee performance management, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.