Eduardo Burkhart v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
112 F.3d 1207, 47 Fed. R. Serv. 142, 324 U.S. App. D.C. 241 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the WMATA Compact, a public transit authority is protected by sovereign immunity from tort claims for negligent hiring, training, and supervision because these activities are discretionary governmental functions. Additionally, an expert witness may not offer testimony that consists of legal conclusions or opinions on whether a legal standard has been met.
Facts:
- Eduardo Burkhart and Basram Salman, both of whom are deaf, boarded a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) bus operated by Archie Smith.
- Burkhart and Salman each paid a thirty-cent fare, which was less than the correct fifty-cent fare for passengers with disabilities.
- Smith called out to them to pay the correct fare, but due to their deafness, they did not understand his request.
- A physical altercation then ensued between Smith and Burkhart on the bus.
- After the bus arrived at its destination, the confrontation continued, with Smith grabbing Burkhart’s finger and Burkhart kicking Smith.
- Transit Police Officer Jonathan Gray arrived to investigate the incident.
- Burkhart, whose primary language is American Sign Language and secondary language is Spanish, communicated with Officer Gray by writing notes in English.
- Burkhart testified that he requested a sign-language interpreter during his interaction with Officer Gray, but one was not provided.
Procedural Posture:
- Eduardo Burkhart filed suit against WMATA and its employee, Archie Smith, in a federal trial court.
- Burkhart alleged claims for assault, battery, and infliction of emotional distress (against Smith, and WMATA vicariously), negligent hiring, training, and supervision (against WMATA directly), and violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act (against WMATA directly).
- WMATA admitted that Smith was acting within the scope of his employment, and the trial court subsequently dismissed the claims against Smith personally.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial presided over by a magistrate judge.
- The jury returned a verdict for Burkhart on all claims, awarding damages for assault/battery, emotional distress, negligent hiring/training/supervision ($50,000), and ADA/Rehabilitation Act violations ($50,000).
- The trial court entered a final judgment in Burkhart's favor, including an award of attorneys' fees.
- WMATA, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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:
Does sovereign immunity under the WMATA Compact, which protects governmental functions, bar claims against WMATA for the negligent hiring, training, and supervision of its employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Sentelle
Yes. Sovereign immunity under the WMATA Compact bars claims against it for negligent hiring, training, and supervision because these are discretionary governmental functions. The court applied the two-part discretionary function test from United States v. Gaubert. First, no specific statute, regulation, or policy prescribes a course of action for WMATA's personnel decisions, leaving it room for choice. Second, these choices are susceptible to policy judgment, as they involve balancing budgetary constraints, public safety, employee privacy, and economic considerations. Therefore, these actions are governmental functions for which WMATA is immune from tort liability. The court also reversed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act judgment because the trial court improperly allowed Burkhart's expert witness, Edward Spurlock, to testify on ultimate legal issues. Spurlock offered impermissible legal conclusions by using statutory terms of art (e.g., whether communication was 'as effective' or training was 'to proficiency') and misstating the law, which is the sole province of the judge.
Concurring - Edwards
This opinion does not directly address the sovereign immunity issue but agrees that the negligent hiring, supervision, and training claim should not have been submitted to the jury. The concurrence focuses on the ADA claim, agreeing that the admission of the expert's testimony was a significant error that was not harmless and thus required a remand for a new trial. However, the author expressed a strong belief that, even without the improper expert testimony, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict that WMATA had violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies WMATA's broad sovereign immunity for its personnel management decisions, applying the federal discretionary function test from the FTCA to the WMATA Compact. By classifying hiring, training, and supervision as discretionary policy judgments, the court significantly limits the avenues for plaintiffs to hold the authority directly liable for employee misconduct, pushing them toward vicarious liability claims instead. The case also provides a strong reaffirmation of the evidentiary rule prohibiting expert witnesses from offering legal conclusions, creating clear precedent for trial courts in the D.C. Circuit to police the boundary between permissible factual opinion and impermissible legal testimony, especially in statutory cases like those under the ADA.
