Lexplug logoLexplug

Jackson v. Righter

Utah Supreme Court
1995 Utah LEXIS 16, 891 P.2d 1387, 1995 WL 84207 (1995)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's tortious romantic conduct, such as alienation of affections, when that conduct is personally motivated and not the kind the employee was hired to perform. Furthermore, an employer has no direct duty to police the private romantic relationships of its employees to protect their spouses from such harms.


Facts:

  • Jeffrey L. Jackson and Marie Jackson were married in August 1987.
  • In November 1988, Marie Jackson began working at Novell under the direct supervision of Grover P. Righter.
  • Over the course of her employment, Righter promoted Mrs. Jackson, gave her bonuses and gifts, and authorized her to record unworked overtime.
  • By November 1990, Righter and Mrs. Jackson began a romantic relationship that included kissing and hugging in his office during work hours.
  • Righter used the pretext of business to take Mrs. Jackson on personal outings to hotels and a dance hall, and to extend work-related travel.
  • In July 1991, Mrs. Jackson ended her relationship with Righter and began a sexual relationship with another Novell employee, Clay Wilkes.
  • Jeffrey Jackson became aware of his wife's romantic involvement with Righter and Wilkes in November 1991.
  • Following this discovery, Jeffrey and Marie Jackson participated in marriage counseling but ultimately divorced.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff Jeffrey L. Jackson filed an action in the district court (trial court) against Grover Righter, Clay Wilkes, Novell, Inc., and Univel.
  • The complaint alleged, among other things, vicarious liability and negligent supervision against the employers, Novell and Univel.
  • All defendants moved for summary judgment.
  • The trial court denied the motions for Righter and Wilkes but granted summary judgment in favor of Novell and Univel, dismissing all claims against them.
  • The trial court certified the dismissal of Novell and Univel as a final order.
  • Plaintiff Jeffrey L. Jackson (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Utah Supreme Court.

Locked

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 an employer have vicarious liability under respondeat superior or direct liability for negligent supervision when an employee engages in a romantic relationship with a subordinate, allegedly causing the alienation of the subordinate's spouse's affections?


Opinions:

Majority - Stewart, Associate Chief Justice

No. An employer cannot be held liable for an employee's affair that results in alienation of affections, either vicariously or directly. For vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employee's conduct must be within the scope of employment. Applying the three-part test from Birkner v. Salt Lake County, the court found that Righter's romantic involvement with Mrs. Jackson failed two prongs: it was not the general type of work he was employed to perform, and it was motivated entirely by personal interest, not by a purpose to serve the employer. The court stated Righter's actions were an abandonment of his supervisory duties, not a part of them. The claim of apparent authority also fails because the employer did not clothe Righter with the authority to engage in a romance, nor did the plaintiff rely on any such authority. For direct liability based on negligent supervision, the court held that Novell and Univel owed no duty to Mr. Jackson. It is not reasonably foreseeable that a workplace romance will result in a successful alienation of affections claim, which depends on the specific quality of the marriage. Furthermore, strong policy considerations preclude imposing a duty on employers to police the private conduct and romantic relationships of their employees, as this would be an unreasonable burden and could expose employers to liability for invasion of privacy.



Analysis:

This case significantly limits employer liability for torts arising from workplace romances by narrowly defining the 'scope of employment' to exclude purely personal conduct, even when an employee's professional authority facilitates it. The decision establishes a strong policy precedent against requiring employers to act as 'morality police,' thereby protecting them from a duty to monitor employees' private romantic lives to prevent torts like alienation of affections. This insulates companies from liability for the personal, off-mission conduct of their employees and clarifies that foreseeability in negligent supervision claims requires more than general knowledge that workplace affairs can harm marriages.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Jackson v. Righter (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"