Anicich v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
41 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1717, 2017 WL 1101090, 852 F.3d 643 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Illinois law, an employer may be liable for negligent supervision for an employee's intentional tort committed off-premises if the employee used their employer-granted supervisory authority to facilitate the tort. The abuse of such authority is analogous to the use of an employer's premises or chattel in establishing the employer's duty.
Facts:
- Home Depot and Grand Service jointly employed Brian Cooper as a regional manager and Alisha Bromfield as a seasonal employee beginning in 2006.
- Cooper had a known history of sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and physically intimidating his young female subordinates.
- Over a period of five years, Cooper subjected Bromfield to escalating abuse, including calling her names like 'bitch' and 'slut' in front of customers, throwing objects, monitoring her outside of work, and demanding they share a hotel room on business trips.
- Bromfield and other employees repeatedly complained to senior management about Cooper's conduct. Management was aware of his behavior, ordered him to attend anger management classes, but did not follow up to ensure his completion.
- In 2012, Cooper demanded that Bromfield, who was seven months pregnant, accompany him on a personal trip to his sister's wedding in Wisconsin.
- When Bromfield refused to go, Cooper used his supervisory authority to threaten to fire her or reduce her work hours.
- Compelled by Cooper's threat, Bromfield attended the wedding with him.
- After the wedding, in a hotel room, Cooper strangled Bromfield to death and subsequently raped her corpse after she again refused to enter a relationship with him.
Procedural Posture:
- Sherry Anicich, as administrator of Alisha Bromfield's estate, filed a negligence lawsuit against Home Depot and Grand in an Illinois state court.
- The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the district court granted with leave to amend.
- Anicich filed an amended complaint.
- The defendants again moved to dismiss, arguing they did not owe a duty of care to Bromfield under the circumstances.
- The district court granted the second motion to dismiss, finding the harm was not foreseeable and the defendants had no duty to control their employee off-premises.
- Anicich, the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Illinois law for negligent supervision, does an employer's duty of care extend to protecting an employee from an intentional tort committed by a supervisor off the employer's premises when the supervisor uses their supervisory authority to compel the employee's presence where the tort occurs?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, Circuit Judge
Yes. An employer's duty of care for negligent supervision extends to off-premises torts where a supervisor uses their delegated authority to orchestrate the harm. Although Illinois law generally limits an employer's liability for an employee's off-duty torts to those occurring on the employer's premises or involving the employer's chattels (per Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317), the court finds that supervisory authority is analogous to a chattel. Just as an employer can be liable for negligently entrusting an employee with a company vehicle, it can be liable for negligently entrusting an employee with authority over other employees' livelihoods. Cooper used his authority—the power to fire Bromfield or cut her hours—to compel her presence on the trip, which directly enabled the tort. This use of authority created a sufficient connection between the employment and the harm, making the injury occur 'by virtue of the servant’s employment.' Furthermore, Cooper's escalating pattern of harassment, control, and aggression made it foreseeable that 'some harm' could result, which is sufficient to establish proximate cause. The precise nature or magnitude of the harm, such as murder, need not be foreseen.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and arguably expands the scope of employer liability for negligent supervision under Illinois law. By equating supervisory authority with an employer's 'chattel,' the court provides a new avenue for plaintiffs to hold employers accountable for off-premises torts committed by supervisors. The ruling bridges the gap between traditional common law tort principles and modern employment realities, recognizing that a supervisor's power is a potent tool that, if misused, can directly lead to harm. This precedent will likely make it more difficult for employers to dismiss claims involving off-site misconduct by arguing the tort was disconnected from the employment, especially when a supervisor leverages their position to control a subordinate.
