Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiffs, Denise Arguello et al., are a group of minorities that were discriminated against by employees of gas stations affiliated with Defendant, Conoco, Inc.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Once a master-servant relationship is established, a master is subject to liability for the torts of the servant when the servant is acting within the scope of their employment
The first issue is whether Defendant established an agency relationship with the independently-owned stations that would make Defendant liable for the employees’ actions.
The second issue is whether the employees at Defendant-owned stations acted outside the scope of their employment when they discriminated against Plaintiffs.
Defendant did not establish a master-servant relationship with the Conoco-branded, independently-owned stations. The PMA was not ambiguous; there was plain language that described the relationship between Defendant and franchisees as separate and outside of any agency relationship. Defendant never controlled day-to-day operations of the stores.
Employees at the Defendant-owned stores could have been working within the scope of their employment when they discriminated against the customers. There was evidence that the employees were on the job performing transactions they normally handle, and the extent of the departure from their normal methods is a question of fact that should be presented to the jury.
Among the factors considered to determine whether the acts are within the scope of employment are: (1) the time, place and purpose of the act; (2) its similarity to acts which the servant is authorized to perform; (3) whether the act is commonly performed by such servants; (4) the extent of departure from normal methods; (5) the previous relations between the parties; and (6) whether the master would reasonably expect such an act would be performed.View Full Point of Law
This case outlines the factors for determining whether an employee is acting within the scope of their employment: “A master is not subject to liability for the torts of his employees acting outside the scope of their employment, unless: 1) the master intended the conduct or consequences, 2) the master was negligent or reckless, or 3) the conduct violated a non-delegable duty of the master, or 4) the employee purported to speak on behalf of the principal” (Restatement Section: 219(2)).