Bagent v. Blessing Care Corp.
224 Ill. 2d 154, 308 Ill. Dec. 782, 862 N.E.2d 985 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an employer to be vicariously liable for an employee's tort under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employee's conduct must satisfy all three criteria of the Restatement (Second) of Agency §228: the conduct must be of the kind the employee is employed to perform, occur within the authorized time and space limits, and be actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.
Facts:
- In August 2001, Illini Hospital hired Misty Young as a phlebotomist.
- In February 2003, Young attended a hospital training session on patient confidentiality under HIPAA, signing documents acknowledging she understood that patient information was private and could only be shared with medical staff directly involved in a patient's care.
- While performing her duties, Young received a fax containing Suzanne Bagent's blood test results, which indicated Bagent was pregnant.
- On a subsequent weekend night, while off-duty at a local tavern, Young encountered Bagent's twin sister, Sarah Bagent, who was also a close friend of Young's.
- During a casual conversation, Young asked Sarah how her sister Suzanne was feeling and revealed that she thought Suzanne was pregnant.
- Young later stated in a deposition that she disclosed the information because she was friends with Sarah and incorrectly assumed the sisters had already discussed the pregnancy.
- After Suzanne Bagent complained to the hospital about the breach of confidentiality, Young resigned in lieu of termination.
Procedural Posture:
- Suzanne Bagent filed a complaint against Misty Young and Illini Hospital in the circuit court of Pike County, a court of first instance.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Illini Hospital, finding Young acted outside the scope of her employment.
- Bagent, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment order to the Illinois Appellate Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- A divided panel of the appellate court reversed the circuit court's judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Young's motivation.
- Illini Hospital, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, the state's highest court. Bagent is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an employer vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's disclosure of confidential patient information when the disclosure was made off-duty, at a social gathering, and for purely personal reasons, even though the information was obtained through the course of employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Freeman
No. An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's tortious act if that act was not committed within the scope of employment. The court applied the three-part test from the Restatement (Second) of Agency §228 and held that all three criteria must be met for an act to fall within the scope of employment. First, Young's disclosure of patient information was not the kind of conduct she was employed to perform; her job was to draw blood and handle records, and she was expressly forbidden from disclosing confidential information. Second, the court declined to rule on whether the conduct occurred within authorized time and space limits, as the failure of the other criteria was dispositive. Third, and most critically, Young's action was not actuated by a purpose to serve her employer, Illini Hospital. Her own testimony confirmed her motivation was purely personal—a social conversation with a friend. Because Young's conduct was not the kind she was hired to perform and was not motivated by a purpose to serve the hospital, her actions fell outside the scope of her employment, and Illini Hospital cannot be held vicariously liable.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict requirements for establishing vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior in Illinois. It clarifies that all three prongs of the Restatement's 'scope of employment' test are mandatory. The ruling places significant weight on the employee's subjective motivation, establishing that if an act is 'solely and exclusively personal,' the employer is shielded from liability. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to hold employers liable for employees' intentional torts or confidentiality breaches that occur off-duty, even when the employee misuses information obtained through their employment.
