eNotes: Liability – August 2023 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Trump v. Carroll
District of Colombia Court of Appeals
292 A.3d 220

Decided: April 13, 2023

District of Colombia follows Section 228(1)-(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Agency in determining whether an employee is within the scope of employment.

Background

In November 2019, E. Jean Carroll filed a Complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging that she was sexually assaulted and raped by Mr. Trump. In response to media inquiries regarding the allegations, then-President Trump issued a public statement denying the assault allegations and questioning Ms. Carroll’s motives for making a public allegation. Ms. Carroll contends that the content of these statements by the former President operated to defame her by falsely denying the allegations as well as falsely implying that she invented the allegations to make money, increase her book sales, or carry out a political agenda. Once litigation was underway, the United States invoked the federal Westfall Act, which immunizes federal employees from personal liability and allows for potential recovery against the United States if liability is found.

Pursuant to the Westfall Act, the Attorney General, through his designate, certified that then-President Trump was acting within the scope of his employment, and therefore immune from personal liability under the Westfall Act. Ms. Carroll opposed the United States’ Motion to substitute itself as the sole Defendant in the litigation, challenging the underlying certification on two grounds. Specifically, she argued that: (1) a President is not an employee within the meaning of the Westfall Act; and (2) then-President Trump was not acting within the scope of his employment when he made the allegedly defamatory statements. The case was appealed to the Second Circuit, which concluded that the President was an employee of the government, and that the law of the District of Colombia applied. The Court then certified the question of whether the President was acting within the scope of his employment, and the way respondeat superior is handled in the District of Colombia, to the District of Colombia Court of Appeals.

Holding

The District of Colombia Court of Appeals confirmed that conduct was within the scope of employment if it was the kind of work the person is employed to perform, occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits, and is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. As a result, the Court confirmed that that the District of Columbia had formally adopted the language of Section 228(1)-(2) to define the scope of employment. However, the Court declined to apply the doctrine to the facts at issue in the case.

Questions about this case can be directed to Nicholas Schaufelberger at (202) 945-9502 or nschaufelberger@tthlaw.com.