RECREATION AND PARKS LAW REPORTER, REPORT # 92-25 DUTY TO SCREEN RECREATION SUPERVISOR APPLICANT WILLIAMS v. BUTLER 577 So.2d 1113 (La.App. 1991) Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit March 28, 1991 In this case, plaintiffs Eddie Williams and Darrell Wheeler (Williams) alleged that their two minor daughters, Natasha Williams and LeToya Wheeler, were molested by an employee of the defendant Baton Rouge Recreation and Parks Commission (BREC). The alleged acts of sexual misconduct occurred while defendant Wendell Butler was a supervisor for BREC at the Kerr-Warren Recreational Gym (Center). The facts of the case were as follows:
The events first came to the attention of the parents during the course of an outdoor barbecue at the Wheeler home on July 18, 1984. Several young people were present at the barbecue: LeToya Wheeler, Velika McKinney, Natasha Williams, and Leonard Williams. At the time, the girls were six or seven years old and the boy was eight or nine years old. At Leonard's prompting, the girls told Yvonne Wheeler about the incidents which are the subject of this suit. According to the deposition of Yvonne Wheeler, the children told her that Wendell Butler, a/k/a Black Kiki, put his hands between the girls' legs and placed his tongue in their mouths. The girls also told Yvonne Wheeler that they had been too afraid to discuss the incidents prior to that evening because Butler threatened that he would cut the girls' hair off if they told anyone.
The deposition of Darrell Wheeler indicates he learned of the alleged incidents after returning home that evening from work. The next day, around noon, Darrell Wheeler went to the Center to investigate his daughter's claims. After arriving, he was told by a woman, who later turned out to be Butler's mother, to wait outside the office and she would get Butler. While Wheeler waited he could hear a great deal of "shuffling" noises coming from Butler's office, noises which indicated that he was looking for something. After waiting for some time Wheeler decided to leave. He left the building heading for his truck parked in the Center's lot. Butler came out of the building with a pistol in his hand. Butler asked Wheeler if he was looking for him and then fired three to four shots, one of which struck Wheeler in the left shoulder.
Butler in an affidavit denied molesting the children. Moreover, he claimed Wheeler was armed when he arrived at the Center and that he shot Wheeler in self-defense.
Cliff Henderson, area supervisor for BREC, originally hired Butler for a janitorial position at the Anna T. Jordan Recreation Center, then later promoted him to the supervisory position he held at the Kerr-Warren Center. As per BREC policy Butler filled out an application, but he did not provide an answer in the space provided for prior criminal convictions. Henderson examined the application before Butler was hired as janitor and before he was promoted, but Henderson did not notice the omission on either occasion. Ordinarily, the BREC personnel department also examines prospective applicants carefully. However, in this case, personnel did not review the application with their typical zeal because they were aware that Henderson had some knowledge of his background, as Butler often used the Center. Apparently, Butler had in fact been previously convicted of a felony. Henderson admitted that he would have hired someone else for the position had he known of the conviction.
Henderson's deposition indicates that part of Butler's job description includes supervising the young children who came to play at the Center. Henderson tried to check on him several times a day. However, this often turned out to be simply driving by and not stopping. Butler was classified as part-time, at 32 hours a week, but he regularly worked 40 hours per week.
Plaintiffs contend that BREC was negligent in hiring Butler and the negligence was the legal cause of the harm. The trial court granted BREC's motion for summary judgment. Williams appealed.
On appeal, Williams argued that the trial court had erred in dismissing BREC for the suit. Specifically, Williams argued that BREC was potentially liable "for its independent negligence in hiring Butler; and for its independent negligence in failing to properly supervise the activities at the Center."
According to the appeals court, "where a tort-feasor because of the employer/employee relationship has a unique opportunity to commit a crime, such as enabling easy access to the home of the victim, the employer is held to a high standard of duty in the selection and continued retention of its employees."
[W]here there is some special relationship between the parties the defendant may be burdened with a heavy responsibility when there is an especial temptation and opportunity for criminal misconduct... [Butler] was hired for a very sensitive position, and BREC made no effort at all to examine his background... [despite] the application given by Butler to BREC with its ominous omission.
[W]here BREC is entrusted with the well-being of the children of the community. Often unsupervised, Butler was placed in a position of authority over young children. We find that when an employee is to be placed in a position of supervisory and/or disciplinary authority over children, the employer has a duty to properly screen the applicant (and continue to provide screening) to determine if the applicant has been convicted of a crime (or crimes) involving moral turpitude. Here, the record contains evidence that Butler has been arrested for, among other things, theft, robbery, and distribution of controlled dangerous substances. The record, however, does not reveal what Butler was convicted of prior to his employment with BREC.
The appeals court further noted that the state legislature had recently enacted the following statutes which were "aimed at shielding children from persons convicted of certain criminal offenses involving moral turpitude."
The legislature did not begin enacting these statutes until 1986, well after BREC's hiring of Butler. However, these provisions do provide persuasive support for imposing a high standard of care on the selection of BREC's supervisory personnel.
An employer can be held vicariously liable for the intentional torts committed by its employees... four factors were important in making its determination: (1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment-rooted; (2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee's duties; (3) whether the act occurred on the employer's premises; and (4) whether it occurred during the hours of employment.
[E]ach case must be looked at on its own merits and that all four factors set forth... need not be met before liability may be found.
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the appeals court noted that "[t]he acts in question clearly occurred at a BREC facility and during the hours that the Center was open to the public."
As stated earlier, Butler categorically denies molesting the children and claims that he fired at Wheeler in self-defense. In contrast, LeToya Wheeler states that Butler tried to touch her between her legs, tried to kiss her, and actually succeeded in putting his hands under her shirt. When combined with Yvonne Wheeler's more shocking versions of the story, which may well be admissible... as an initial complaint of sexually assaultive behavior, at the least there is a material issue of fact regarding whether Natasha was assaulted, i.e., an intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact and the present ability to effectuate the threat.
The deposition of Natasha Williams is more problematic. At the time of the deposition, she was approximately nine or ten years old. Admittedly, her deposition does not affirmatively establish that Butler harmed her in any way. However, the deposition does reveal that she was unable to speak freely about the incident:
Q. Did he ever touch you in any way?
A. (Witness nodded her head affirmatively.)
Q. Can you tell me how he touched you?
A. (Witness did not respond.)
Q. No. But, he did touch you?
A. (Witness nodded her head affirmatively.)
Q. And you can't tell me how he touched you? You don't remember?
A. (Witness shook her head negatively.)
In light of her tender years, and the traumatic circumstances associated with sexual assaults, we cannot conclude that no issue of material fact exists.
The appeals court, therefore, reversed the summary judgment of the trial court and remanded this case for further proceedings to determine whether defendant BREC would be liable for their employee's alleged criminal misconduct because it occurred within the scope of the employee's authority as a recreation supervisor.