Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)

Citation: Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)
Parent Document: Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 2008-12-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/888205/denke-v-shoemaker/ ↗

Full Text

1,108 chars

¶77 First, citing Vainio and E.E.O.C. v. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504, 1515 (9th Cir. 1989), the City claims that respondeat superior applies in the discrimination context only if the discriminatory act was committed by the complainant’s “supervisor.” Thus, the City contends, since Shoemaker was not Denke’s supervisor, the City is not liable for his unlawful retaliatory conduct. The cases cited by the City, however, do not support such a rule. It is true that Vainio and Hacienda Hotel involved discrimination (specifically, sexual harassment) by a “supervisor,” but neither case states that respondeat superior applies only to conduct by a “supervisor.” In fact, what we stated in Vainio was that “[a]ll that is needed to make [the employer] subject to the administrative proceeding is for [the employee] to allege that [the perpetrator], an agent of [the employer], committed unlawful sexual discrimination.” Vainio, 258 Mont. at 279, 852 P.2d at 600 (emphasis added). This statement is consistent with the fact, noted above, that respondeat superior is a doctrine of the law of agency. Saucier, ¶ 64.

Other Sections in This Document (1000)

Full Text