Lexplug logoLexplug

Samantha Orduno v. Richard Pietrzak

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
932 F.3d 710 (2019)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), an employer is vicariously liable for an employee's tortious actions committed outside the scope of employment if the employee was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relationship.


Facts:

  • In November 2012, a photocopy of City Administrator Samantha Orduno's paycheck was found in a copy machine at the City of Dayton's main office.
  • Orduno suspected Police Chief Richard Pietrzak and asked another police chief, Lynne Bankes, to investigate.
  • Bankes discovered that between 2010 and 2012, Pietrzak had used the Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services database to search for Orduno's personal information seven times.
  • Bankes noted that Pietrzak searched by name rather than vehicle information, indicating the searches were not for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
  • A further audit revealed Pietrzak had accessed the private information of more than 850 people, including his family members and other city employees.
  • Pietrzak used his government-issued computer and official credentials to perform these database searches for personal reasons.

Procedural Posture:

  • Samantha Orduno sued Police Chief Richard Pietrzak and the City of Dayton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations of the DPPA.
  • Orduno filed a motion to certify a class action on behalf of all individuals whose data Pietrzak had improperly accessed.
  • The district court denied the motion for class certification, finding it failed to meet the numerosity and predominance requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
  • Pietrzak filed an amended answer admitting he obtained Orduno's information for an impermissible purpose on six occasions within the statute of limitations.
  • The district court granted summary judgment for the City on direct liability but denied it on the issue of vicarious liability.
  • After a trial on damages, a jury awarded Orduno $85,000 in punitive damages and the court added $15,000 in liquidated damages.
  • Orduno (appellant) appealed the denial of class certification and other rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
  • The City of Dayton (cross-appellant) cross-appealed the district court's judgment holding it vicariously liable for Pietrzak's actions.

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:

Under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), is a municipal employer vicariously liable for a police chief's impermissible access of motor vehicle records when he was acting for personal reasons, but was aided in committing the violation by the authority and credentials of his official position?


Opinions:

Majority - Colloton, J.

Yes. A municipal employer is vicariously liable for its employee's DPPA violations under these circumstances. When Congress creates a tort action like the DPPA, it is presumed to incorporate traditional common law principles of vicarious liability. At the time the DPPA was enacted in 1994, the prevailing rule, articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Agency, held a principal liable for an agent's actions even when they were outside the scope of employment if the agent was 'aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation.' Pietrzak could not have accessed Orduno's private information but for his position as police chief, which gave him the computer, credentials, and authority to access the database. Therefore, because his agency relationship with the City aided him in committing the tort, the City is vicariously liable for his actions.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies that federal statutes creating tort-like causes of action, such as the DPPA, are presumed to incorporate common law vicarious liability principles unless Congress specifies otherwise. By applying the 'aided in the agency relation' theory, the court confirmed that public employers can be held responsible for employees' misuse of official power, even for purely personal motives. This provides plaintiffs a path to hold municipalities liable as 'deep pocket' defendants, potentially increasing employer incentives to monitor and control employee access to sensitive data.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Samantha Orduno v. Richard Pietrzak (2019)

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