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

1,150 chars

¶79 At first glance, the City’s reasoning has some appeal. Essentially, the City argues that if Shoemaker’s letters were not published “in the proper discharge of an official duty” for purposes of § 27-1-804(1), MCA, as the hearing examiner found, then he could not have been acting “within the scope of his duties to the City” for purposes of respondeat superior liability. The flaw in the City’s reasoning, however, is the assumption that these two standards are equivalent. They are not. Unlawful retaliatory conduct does not qualify as “the proper discharge of an official duty” for purposes of § 27-1-804(1), MCA. In contrast, the doctrine of respondeat superior is designed to hold an employer liable for the wrongful conduct of its employee. The doctrine actually contemplates that wrongful conduct (such as unlawful retaliation) was committed within the scope of employment. Accordingly, the fact that Shoemaker’s retaliatory statements were not privileged under § 27-1-804(1), MCA, does not mean that the City cannot be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for his making those statements-Aristotle’s Lógica notwithstanding.

Other Sections in This Document (1000)

Full Text