Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

NEW YORKOtherEmployer is not liable for sexual abuse committed by an employeeunder the doctrine of respondeat superior because sexual assault isnot within the scope of employment and could not be in furtherance ofthe employer’s business. Wende C. v. United Methodist Church, 776N.Y.S.2d 390 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004); Joshua S. v. Casey, 615 N.Y.S.2d200 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994).Where student alleged sexual abuse by counselor, there could be nonegligent hiring claim against the foundation where claimant failed toshow foundation had prior knowledge of counselor’s sexual conductor that a background check would have uncovered such knowledge.Murray v. Research Foundation of State University of New York, 707N.Y.S.2d 816 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2000); See also Koran I. v. New YorkCity of Bd. of Educ., 683 N.Y.S.2d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) (Schoolprincipal’s failure to perform a background check on a volunteer couldnot serve as the basis for a cause of action for negligent hiring).Claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional inflictionof emotional distress were not available to a woman who claimedan inappropriate sexual relationship with a priest during counselingsince such claims would foster excessive entanglement with religion.Ehrens v. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 269 F. Supp. 2d328 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); See also Mars v. Diocese of Rochester, 763N.Y.S.2d 885 (Sup. Ct. 2003); Langford v. Roman Catholic Dioceseof Brooklyn, 705 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000); Cf. Kenneth R.v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 654 N.Y.S.2d 791 (N.Y. App.Div. 1997) (First Amendment does not prevent an action for negligentsupervision and retention against a diocese which had notice of apriest’s propensity to sexually abuse children).– 47 –