P.L. v. Aubert

• Decision Date: 05 April 1996
• Docket Number: No. 306,No. C2-94-1502,306,C2-94-1502
• Citation: 545 N.W.2d 666
• Parties: 108 Ed. Law Rep. 887, 11 IER Cases 1035 P.L., Respondent, v. Lynn AUBERT, Respondent, Daniel Brooks, Independent School District, petitioners, Appellants.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 666

545 N.W.2d 666

108 Ed. Law Rep. 887, 11 IER Cases 1035

P.L., Respondent, v.Lynn AUBERT, RespondentDaniel Brooks, Independent School District No. 306petitioners, Appellants.

No. C2-94-1502.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 5, 1996.

Syllabus by the Court

1.In this case, the employer is not liable for the intentional torts of the employee, even though the acts occurred within work-related limits of time and place, where such acts were unforeseeable and were unrelated to the duties of the employee.

2.An employer is not liable for negligently supervising an employee who commits a tort when such behavior could not have been anticipated or otherwise discovered through the normal exercise of reasonable care.

Review of Court of Appeals.

Michael T. Milligan, Kenneth H. Bayliss, St. Cloud, for appellants.

Katherine S. Flom, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

TOMLJANOVICH, Justice.

Lynn Aubert was a 42-year-old licensed school teacher starting her first year of teaching at LaPorte High School, LaPorte, Minnesota in September of 1989.She was interviewed for the position by Daniel Brooks, who was the high school principal and school superintendent for School DistrictNo. 306 (ISD No. 306), the LaPorte school district.A standard background check was completed and she was found to have good academic credentials and exceptional personal references.

P.L. was a student in three classes that Aubert taught--clerical, business math and accounting.Early in the school year, Aubert began talking with P.L. about personal problems with her marriage and her family.She also spoke with him about his family's problems and his personal problems with drinking.

In November or December of that school year, Aubert began kissing P.L. while they were alone in the classroom.In December, Aubert had a Christmas party at her home for her business math students.During the party, she spent time dancing with P.L., resting her hands on his buttocks.More intimate contact occurred in the months following the party.

During times alone with P.L., Aubert would lock the classroom door, and she and P.L. would engage in intimate sexual contact both over and under their clothing.She would also have him sit with her at her desk during class and they would engage in intimate sexual contact hidden only by her desk, while other students were present in the room.Aubert also asked other teachers to excuse P.L. from their classes so that he might receive "extra help."P.L. would meet Aubert in her classroom, she would lock the door, and they would engage in intimate sexual contact consisting of repeated touching of the genitals over and under their clothing, kissing and hugging.

Although sexual intercourse never occurred, the relationship continued until homecoming dress-up week in the spring of 1990.¹At that time, P.L. told Aubert the relationship had to end and it did end at that time.At no time either during or immediately after the relationship between Aubert and P.L. did either party tell anyone about the relationship or their clandestine meetings during school hours.

In December 1992, P.L. filed a complaint alleging several counts of inappropriate behavior on the part of Aubert, and alleging that Brooks and ISD No. 306 were responsible for Aubert's behavior.The complaint alleged causes of action against Aubert, Brooks and ISD No. 306 for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual harassment, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring.

The trial court granted summary judgment to ISD No. 306 and Brooks, and denied summary judgment to Aubert.On appeal, the court of appeals found fact issues remained regarding the battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision claims against ISD No. 306 and Brooks.The court of appeals reversed summary judgment on those three claims and affirmed summary judgment in favor of ISD No. 306 and Brooks on the negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, sexual harassment, and negligent hiring claims.ISD No. 306 and Brooks appealed.

In Marston v. Minneapolis Clinic of Psychiatry and Neurology, Ltd., 329 N.W.2d 306(Minn.1982), we affirmed the two-prong test established ten years earlier in Lange v. National Biscuit Company, 297 Minn. 399, 211 N.W.2d 783(1973), that in order for liability to lie with the employer, "the source of the attack [must be] related to the duties of the employee and * * * [occur] within work related limits of time and place."Id. at 405, 211 N.W.2d at 786.

In Marston the employee was a psychologist who made unwelcome and improper sexual advances to patients during and immediately after therapy sessions in his office.Marston, 329 N.W.2d at 308.We noted that the doctor "intentionally departed from the standards of his profession, not * * * to cause harm * * *, but rather to confer a personal benefit on himself."Id. at 310.In that situation, we held the employer liable for the employee's actions, because there was a fact issue as to whether the acts were within the scope of the doctor's employment.We stated that "it should be a question of fact whether the acts of [defendant] were foreseeable related to and connected with acts otherwise within the scope of employment."Id. at 311.This issue of foreseeability was raised because of expert testimony at the lower court that sexual relations between...