Security Company Escapes Liability for Grossly Negligent Employee
by
Joseph C. Maya on Mar. 27, 2017
Employment Sexual Harassment Employment Employee Rights
Summary: Blog post on a case where an employee sued her employer for the grossly negligent acts of another employee.
In the case of Valente v. Securitas Security Services, U.S.A., Inc., a worker alleges that the company's security guard engaged in obscene behavior. The private security company fired the security guard after it became aware of the conduct. As the security company did not allege that the worker's employer was negligent in causing the worker's damages, rather, it alleged that the employer's alleged conduct was "gross negligence" or "grossly negligent," a claim of which does not permit apportionment under Connecticut law.
In the case at hand, the worker alleges that "[for a long time prior to November 2007, unknown to the plaintiff, the security guard used his position and access provided to him by the security company to spy upon the worker and to make her the object of his perverse sexual desires." The security guard's indecent conduct is alleged to have occurred at times when the the worker was away from her office. According to the complaint, the security guard went through the the worker's belongings, left notes in her office addressed from "your secret admirer" in which he asked her for her used underwear, and performed a sexual act while he was alone in her office.
In law, apportionment is the division of liability among several parties that are being sued simultaneously for negligent conduct. The worker sued the employer for the actions of the security guard. The security company argues that they themselves were not implicated in the actions of their employee, whom was fired immediately upon discovery of his conduct. Rather, they argue that the only relevant claim against them, alleged gross negligence, was not applicable, because its legal definition is not synonymous with ordinary negligence.
The security guard's employer was granted summary judgment. "The court holds that an apportionment complaint alleging only gross negligence against the apportionment [employer]is a claim against that party on a basis other than negligence and is therefore not an apportionment claim allowed under [Connecticut law]" said the court. "[T]he Supreme Court defined gross negligence as 'very great or excessive negligence, or the want of or failure to exercise even slight care or slight diligence.' This is vastly different from the familiar definition of common-law simple negligence as "the failure to use reasonable care under the circumstances. Reasonable care is the care that a reasonably prudent person would use in the same circumstances."
If you feel you have been mistreated by your employer or in your place of employment and would like to explore your employment law options, contact the experienced employment law attorneys today at 203-221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com. We have the experience and knowledge you need at this critical juncture. We serve clients in both New York and Connecticut including New Canaan, Bridgeport, White Plains, and Darien.
For continuous access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our YouTube channel.
Source: Valente v. Securitas Sec. Servs., U.S.A., Inc., 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2308, 2011 WL 4510078 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 9, 2011)
