Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport
233 F.R.D. 243 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an employer to be liable for negligent hiring or supervision, the employer must have had notice of the employee's propensity to commit the specific type of wrongful conduct that caused the plaintiff's harm. Evidence of unrelated issues, such as an employee's psychological or anger management history, is not relevant or discoverable if the alleged harm is of a different nature, such as sexual harassment.
Facts:
- Maryann Favale worked as an administrative assistant at Saint Joseph’s School, which was operated by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport.
- In November 2002, Sister Bernice Stobierski became the school's interim principal and assumed the full-time position in May 2003.
- Favale alleges that from December 2002 to June 2003, Sister Stobierski subjected her to severe and repeated sexual harassment.
- The alleged harassment included inappropriate touching, sexually suggestive comments, lewd behavior, and requests for physical affection.
- On June 11, 2003, Favale first informed her employer, the Diocese, of the alleged sexual harassment.
- Favale no longer works at Saint Joseph's School.
Procedural Posture:
- Maryann Favale and Mark Favale filed suit against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- During discovery, plaintiffs' counsel deposed Sister Stobierski, a non-party witness.
- At the deposition, plaintiffs' counsel questioned Sister Stobierski about her history of psychological, psychiatric, and anger management treatment.
- Counsel for Sister Stobierski and for the defendant Diocese objected to this line of questioning and instructed the witness not to answer.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Sister Stobierski's testimony and the production of related documents from the Diocese.
- The Diocese filed a motion for a protective order to bar discovery into these matters.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a negligent hiring and supervision claim based on alleged sexual harassment, is a non-party employee's history of psychological or anger management treatment relevant and therefore discoverable?
Opinions:
Majority - Squatrito, District Judge.
No. A non-party employee's history of psychological or anger management treatment is not relevant in a negligent hiring and supervision claim when the alleged harm is sexual harassment. The court reasoned that claims for negligent hiring and supervision require the plaintiff to prove the employer knew or should have known of the employee's propensity to engage in the specific type of tortious conduct that caused the harm. Here, the harm alleged was sexual harassment. The information sought by the plaintiffs pertained to alleged anger management and psychological conditions. The court found no nexus between these conditions and a propensity to commit sexual harassment. Therefore, even if the Diocese had notice of Sister Stobierski's alleged anger or psychological issues, this would not constitute notice of a propensity for the type of behavior—sexual harassment—that caused Favale's harm. Because the information was not relevant to the plaintiffs' claims, it was not discoverable.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the nexus requirement in negligent hiring and supervision claims, clarifying that the employer's notice must be of a propensity for the specific type of harm alleged. It serves to limit the scope of discovery, protecting the privacy of non-party employees from fishing expeditions into their personal medical and psychological histories. The ruling establishes that a plaintiff cannot simply seek broad, potentially prejudicial information about an employee's past; the information sought must be logically connected to the specific wrongful act at the heart of the lawsuit. This protects defendants and non-parties from overly burdensome and irrelevant discovery requests.
Unlock the full brief for Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport