Tiffany Vargas v. Riverbend Management LLC
2024 ME 27 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Maine Human Rights Act, an employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's discriminatory tort against a customer if the employee's act constitutes an independent course of conduct not intended to serve any purpose of the employer.
Facts:
- Tiffany Vargas and Erika Acevedo visited a McDonald’s drive-through owned and operated by Riverbend Management LLC.
- At the final window, an employee named Andrew Mosley handed them their order.
- When Vargas asked Mosley for a cup of ice, he told her she would have to go through the drive-through again.
- Another employee intervened and gave Vargas the cup of ice.
- As Vargas and Acevedo drove away, they saw Mosley in the parking lot delivering food to another car.
- Vargas called out to Mosley, "Have a nice day, Andrew."
- Mosley responded by angrily cursing and directing a profoundly offensive racial slur at Vargas and Acevedo.
- The following day, Vargas reported the incident, and Riverbend's owner, Scott Lydick, directed the restaurant manager to investigate and subsequently terminate Mosley's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Tiffany Vargas and Erika Acevedo filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, which issued a right-to-sue letter.
- Vargas and Acevedo filed a complaint in the Superior Court against Riverbend Management LLC for race and gender discrimination.
- Riverbend moved for summary judgment, which the court granted on the gender discrimination claim but denied on the race discrimination claim.
- A bench trial was held on the race discrimination claim.
- The Superior Court (trial court) entered judgment in favor of Riverbend, finding it was not vicariously liable for its employee's actions.
- The trial court denied a motion by Vargas and Acevedo to alter or amend the judgment.
- Vargas and Acevedo, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
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 Maine Human Rights Act, is an employer vicariously liable for an employee's use of a racial slur against a customer when the act is an extreme departure from the employee's assigned duties and contrary to the employer's interests and established anti-discrimination policies?
Opinions:
Majority - Horton, J.
No. An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's discriminatory act when it constitutes an independent course of conduct not intended to serve any purpose of the employer. The court adopted the standard from the Restatement (Third) of Agency, which focuses on whether an employee is performing assigned work or engaging in a course of conduct subject to the employer's control. An employee's act is not within the scope of employment if it is an independent course of conduct not intended to serve the employer. Here, Mosley's use of a racial slur was an extreme and intentional act so far removed from his assigned duties that it could not have been intended to serve Riverbend's interests. The court found it significant that Riverbend had a 'zero-tolerance' anti-discrimination policy, had no prior notice of such behavior from Mosley, and took immediate remedial action by investigating, terminating Mosley, and apologizing to the customers. This demonstrated that Mosley's conduct was his own independent action, not an act for which Riverbend should be held vicariously liable.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for employer vicarious liability in public accommodation discrimination cases under the Maine Human Rights Act. By adopting the Restatement (Third) of Agency's 'independent course of conduct' test, the court establishes that an employee's extreme, intentional tort may fall outside the scope of employment, even if it occurs at the workplace during work hours. The ruling provides a potential shield for employers who maintain and vigorously enforce strong anti-discrimination policies and who take swift, decisive remedial action when an employee engages in such misconduct. This precedent distinguishes customer-facing discrimination from hostile work environment cases involving supervisors, where vicarious liability standards are typically stricter.
