Rule:
The respondeat superior doctrine holds that an employer is liable for the torts committed by its
employees while acting within the scope of their employment. To determine whether someone
is an "employee," the common law factors outlined in Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid
are considered. These factors include the hiring party's right to control the manner and means
of the work, the skill required, the source of tools, the location of work, the duration of the
relationship, the right to assign additional projects, the extent of discretion over work, the
method of payment, the role in hiring assistants, whether the work is part of the regular
business, whether the hiring party is in business, and the tax treatment of the hired party.
Analysis:
The court analyzes each of the Reid factors in the context of the case. While CBS had some
control over the halftime show, including approval rights and supervision, the performers had
significant discretion in their work. Factors such as the brief, one-time nature of the
performance, the performers' selection of choreographers and assistants, lump-sum payments,
the substantial skill required, and the absence of employment tax payments weigh heavily in
favor of classifying Jackson and Timberlake as independent contractors rather than employees.
Conclusion:
Considering the balance of relevant factors, the court concludes that Jackson and Timberlake
were independent contractors, and the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply. The
FCC's order holding CBS liable is vacated in favor of CBS.
This conclusion is further noted that a subsequent Supreme Court case vacated this decision on
grounds other than the issue presented in this excerpt.
Haber v atlantic
Issue:
The key issue is whether the court should grant a preliminary injunction against Haber and
Apex, preventing them from misappropriating or disclosing confidential proprietary information
relating to North Atlantic's business and soliciting any customers of North Atlantic.
Rule:
The court considers the duties imposed on an agent not to use confidential knowledge acquired
in employment in competition with the principal, both during and after the employment. The
Employment Agreement between North Atlantic and Haber explicitly outlines that Haber must
keep confidential matters, including customer lists and trade secrets, in the strictest
confidence. This duty extends beyond the period of Haber's service with North Atlantic.
Analysis:
The court examines the facts and finds that Haber violated the duties imposed by the
Employment Agreement and New York's laws. The Employment Agreement explicitly prohibits
him from using confidential information for the benefit of a competitor business. The court
affirms that the customer lists mentioned in the Employment Agreement encompass the client
contacts at issue. The agreement reinforces Haber's duty under New York law not to use his
former employer's trade secrets against them.
The court also considers the irreparable harm suffered by North Atlantic in the absence of an
injunction. Loss of trade secrets is deemed immeasurable in money damages, and Haber
acknowledged in the Employment Agreement that a breach of the confidentiality clause would
cause irreparable injury to North Atlantic.
Conclusion:
The court affirms the district court's determination that North Atlantic has demonstrated a
sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of its misappropriation of trade secrets claim.
Additionally, the court concludes that North Atlantic would suffer irreparable harm without an
injunction. Therefore, the preliminary injunction is justified, and the judgment is in favor of
North Atlantic, affirming the district court's decision.
Issue:
The key issue is whether Camp Sunshine can be held vicariously liable for the assault committed
by Michael Newton, a volunteer counselor, against Katie Gniadek, a camper, and whether
apparent authority is present in this case.
Rule:
Apparent authority exists when the principal knowingly permits the agent to exercise authority
or holds the agent out as possessing such authority. The Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.08
addresses vicarious liability for torts committed by agents with apparent authority. The
principal is subject to vicarious liability if the agent's actions with apparent authority enable the
agent to conceal the commission of the tort.
Analysis:
Gniadek argues that Newton committed the assault under the apparent authority of Camp
Sunshine. Apparent authority is based on the conduct of the principal leading a third party to
believe that the agent continues to act with actual authority. The Restatement (Third) of
Agency § 7.08 applies to torts committed by agents with apparent authority.
In this case, Newton invited Gniadek on a trip to New York after finishing volunteering at Camp
Sunshine. By conveying that he was no longer acting with the actual authority of Camp
Sunshine, Newton terminated any apparent authority he might have had. Even if Gniadek
believed that Newton still acted on behalf of Camp Sunshine, the assault was not committed
with apparent authority, and Newton's conduct does not fall within the scope of section 7.08.
Conclusion:
The court affirms the trial court's decision, stating that apparent authority does not apply in this
case. Newton's actions were not within the scope of section 7.08, and Camp Sunshine cannot
be held vicariously liable for the assault. The judgment for Camp Sunshine is affirmed.