Superior Court of Connecticut Denied Summary Judgment in Sexual Assault Case Where One of Defendant’s Truck Drivers Assaulted a Co-Employee.

In this matter, the plaintiff alleged she was sexually assaulted by a co-employee, S. Baugh. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that its background checks were clear and it had no notice of Baugh’s propensity to commit the alleged conduct. 

The court denied the motion, citing numerous factors. It noted there were other reported behaviors of an aggressive or harassing nature by Baugh that were allegedly unaddressed by the defendant and that one of the defendant’s witnesses could not confirm whether Baugh had received purported sexual harassment training. 

The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that it could not mandate male and female employees not working together on long-haul trucking trips as it would constitute discrimination on the basis of gender. 

Perhaps most interesting, however, was the manner in which the court picked apart the defendant’s background check, which showed unrelated convictions but no sexual assaults. The court reasoned that convictions are often the result of plea bargains, and background checks do not note prior arrests or discuss the underlying conduct of the cited incidents, nor does it do anything to addressed “non-reported” conduct. It also referred to the background check as inadmissible hearsay. 

This decision, if upheld, would seem to have the chilling effect of supporting an argument that no simple criminal background check can insulate an employer from vicarious liability for an employee’s tortious conduct outside the course and scope of employment. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}