Ophthalmic Surgeons, Ltd. v. Paychex, Inc.
2011 WL 291114, 632 F.3d 31, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1926 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A principal creates apparent authority in an agent through conduct that causes a third party to reasonably believe the agent has authority, and the principal's failure to review reports or object to an agent's fraudulent transactions can constitute such conduct, thereby binding the principal.
Facts:
- In 1994, Ophthalmic Surgeons, Ltd. (OSL) entered into a written agreement with Paychex, Inc. for direct deposit payroll services.
- The agreement authorized Paychex to withdraw from OSL's account 'such amounts as are necessary to pay its employees,' 'as specified by Client.'
- OSL designated its office manager, Carleen Connor, as its sole payroll contact responsible for communicating payroll information to Paychex.
- From 2001 to 2006, Connor directed Paychex to deposit a total of $233,159 more than her authorized annual salary into her bank account.
- To accomplish this, Connor requested that her pay be split into two direct deposit payments for certain pay periods.
- Throughout the six-year period, Paychex regularly sent payroll reports detailing all payments to OSL, addressed to Connor's attention.
- OSL's owner, Dr. Andreoni, did not review these reports and did not object to the overpayments until another employee took over Connor's duties in 2006.
Procedural Posture:
- Ophthalmic Surgeons, Ltd. (OSL) and its owner filed a breach of contract action against Paychex, Inc. in Rhode Island Superior Court (a state trial court).
- Paychex removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (a federal trial court) based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed the punitive damages claim and the owner as an improper party plaintiff.
- Paychex filed a motion for summary judgment against OSL.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Paychex.
- OSL, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 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 a payroll processing company breach its contract, which authorizes it to withdraw funds 'as specified by Client' for 'such amounts as are necessary to pay its employees,' by processing fraudulent payroll requests from the client's designated agent without independent verification?
Opinions:
Majority - Torruella, Circuit Judge.
No. A payroll processing company does not breach its contract by processing payments as directed by a client's designated agent when the contract is unambiguous in placing the responsibility on the client to specify payment amounts. The court held that the contract language clearly authorized Paychex to act on the instructions of OSL's designated contact, Connor. The phrase 'such amounts as are necessary to pay its employees' functions as a limitation on the amount Paychex could withdraw (i.e., only what was specified), not as an affirmative duty to investigate the legitimacy of each payment request. Furthermore, OSL created apparent authority in Connor by placing her in the position of sole payroll contact and then failing to review the payroll reports or object to the fraudulent transactions for six years. This inaction, or acquiescence, made it reasonable for Paychex to believe Connor was authorized to make the requests, thus binding OSL to her actions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that a principal bears the risk of loss from a dishonest agent it has selected and failed to supervise. It clarifies that contractual language authorizing a service provider to act 'as specified by Client' places the burden of verification squarely on the client, not the provider. The ruling serves as a strong precedent emphasizing the importance of corporate internal controls, such as separation of duties and diligent review of financial reports. A company's failure to exercise such oversight can create apparent authority in an agent, negating claims against third-party service providers who reasonably rely on that agent's instructions.
