Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School District
60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 263, 14 Cal. 4th 1066, 929 P.2d 582 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer who writes a letter of recommendation for a former employee owes a duty to third persons not to misrepresent the facts if such misrepresentations present a substantial, foreseeable risk of physical injury to those third persons. Providing an unreservedly positive recommendation while omitting material facts about known dangerous conduct constitutes an actionable affirmative misrepresentation.
Facts:
- Robert Gadams, a school administrator, was employed by Mendota Unified School District, where he had improper contacts with female students, including hugging, giving massages, and making sexual remarks.
- In 1990, a Mendota official, Gilbert Rossette, wrote a recommendation for Gadams describing his "outstanding rapport" with students and recommending him without hesitation, despite knowing of the prior misconduct.
- Gadams was subsequently employed by Golden Plains Unified School District, where he faced parental complaints of sexual overtures to students and resigned under pressure due to sexual misconduct charges.
- A Golden Plains official, Richard Cole, then wrote a letter stating he would recommend Gadams for "almost any administrative position" he wished to pursue.
- Gadams then worked for Muroc Joint Unified School District, where he was forced to resign after disciplinary action was taken against him for sexual harassment allegations, including sexual touching of female students.
- Officials from Muroc wrote a recommendation for Gadams stating he related well to students and recommended him for an assistant principalship "without reservation."
- Based on these recommendations provided to a college placement service, Livingston Union School District hired Gadams as a vice principal.
- While serving as vice principal at Livingston, Gadams sexually assaulted Randi W., a 13-year-old student.
Procedural Posture:
- Randi W. sued Muroc Joint Unified School District, Golden Plains Unified School District, Mendota Unified School District and their officials in a California trial court.
- The complaint alleged several causes of action, including negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and negligence per se.
- The defendants filed demurrers, arguing they owed no duty of care to Randi W.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrers without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal.
- Randi W. (appellant) appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of several counts but reversed the trial court's dismissal of the negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and negligence per se counts, allowing those claims to proceed.
- The defendant school districts (appellants) appealed that reversal to the Supreme Court of California.
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 former employer who provides a knowingly incomplete and misleadingly positive letter of recommendation for a former employee with a history of sexual misconduct have a duty to a third person who is subsequently physically harmed by that employee?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Chin
Yes, a former employer has a duty to third persons not to make affirmative misrepresentations in an employment recommendation that create a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical harm. While employers generally have no duty to disclose negative information, liability may be imposed when a recommendation amounts to an affirmative misrepresentation. Here, the defendants' letters contained unreserved praise and described Gadams as being good with students while concealing their knowledge of his repeated sexual misconduct. This created a 'misleading half-truth' that constituted an affirmative misrepresentation. It was foreseeable that a school district would rely on these recommendations, hire Gadams, and that he would then harm a student. However, the defendants are not liable for negligence per se, because the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act was intended to protect children within the custodial care of the reporting party, and Randi W. was never in the defendants' custodial care.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Kennard
I agree with the majority's conclusion regarding liability for misrepresentation but dissent from its rejection of the negligence per se claim. The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act states its purpose is 'to protect children from abuse' without qualification. This court should not insert the limitation that it only protects children in the reporting party's immediate custody. The protected class should be construed broadly to include all children who could foreseeably be protected by compliance with the act, including future victims like Randi W. Had the defendants reported Gadams's prior misconduct as required, it is probable he would have been prosecuted or lost his credential, preventing him from being in a position to molest the plaintiff.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent by creating a basis for tort liability for misleading employment recommendations that result in physical harm to a third party. It carves out an important exception to the general rule that one has no duty to control the conduct of another or to warn of potential danger. The decision balances the policy of encouraging open communication in references against the policy of preventing foreseeable physical harm, particularly to children. As a result, employers must be more cautious, as providing a deceptively positive 'half-truth' recommendation for a known dangerous employee can lead to liability for fraud or negligent misrepresentation.
Unlock the full brief for Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School District