Allegations of negligent hiring and supervision of employee rebutted by evidence submitted by employer in support of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit

To contact us Click HERE

Allegations of negligent hiring and supervision ofemployee rebutted by evidence submitted by employer in support of its motion todismiss the lawsuit"John Doe 1," v Board of Educ. of Greenport UnionFree Sch. Dist., 2012 NY Slip Op 07633, Appellate Division, Second Department
Parents of a student at the Greenport Union Free SchoolDistrict alleged that a teacher's aide employed by the school district engagedin an inappropriate sexual relationship with their child.
Among the complaints asserted against the school districtand certain of its officers was a cause of action alleging that thesedefendants were [1] vicariously liable for the actions of teacher’s aide and[2] were liable for the negligent hiring and supervision of the aide.
The Appellate Division held that the evidentiary materialsubmitted in support of the school district’s motion to dismiss the action asto the district and certain of its employees demonstrated that the parents didnot have a cause of action against those defendants sounding in eithervicarious liability or negligent hiring and supervision, explaining that all ofthe alleged improper acts by school aide took place off school premises and, or,outside of school hours, when the school defendants had no custody or controlof the students and no duty to monitor or supervise the conduct of the schoolaide.
Further, said the court, the evidence demonstrated that theconduct of aide was personally motivated and constituted a complete departurefrom her duties as a school district employee, thereby negating any potentialvicarious liability on the part of the school defendants for her allegedtortious acts.
As to the claim that the school district was liable fornegligent hiring and supervision of the aide, the Appellate Division said thatthe evidence established that school district “properly investigated” the aideprior to her being hired, and that the school district had no notice of anypropensity on her part to sexually assault students.
The court also noted that the parents did not allege thatthe school district defendants knew or had reason to know of any improperbehavior by the aide nor was any nexus between aide's employment and thealleged sexual assaults, since they were separated by time, place, and theintervening independent acts of the aide.
Accordingly, ruled the Appellate Division, Supreme Courtshould have granted that branch of the school district's motion to dismiss thecomplaint insofar as asserted against the school district and its namedofficials.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07633.htm