Background
Ian Auckland alleged that after a work conference, coworker Hilary Zachry falsely accused him of making a sexually explicit comment, leading to his termination by Gilead Sciences. He sued Zachry and Gilead in federal court in Virginia for defamation and defamation per se, alleging that Gilead was vicariously liable for Zachry’s conduct. The district court dismissed the claims against Zachry for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the claims against Gilead for failure to state a vicarious-liability claim. Auckland appealed.
The court’s reasoning
The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against Zachry because Auckland did not establish minimum contacts with Virginia tied to the defamation claims. General work communications with a Virginia coworker were not the basis of the suit, and the text conversation identified by Auckland discussed only his acceptance into the preceptorship program, not the allegedly defamatory accusation. On the claims against Gilead, the court held that Virginia law gives plaintiffs a rebuttable presumption of vicarious liability once the complaint alleges an employment relationship at the time of the tort. The amended complaint triggered that presumption by alleging that Zachry was a Gilead employee and that the statements were made as part of her employment. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the presumption could be defeated only if the complaint clearly and irrefutably rebutted it, and the court found that the complaint did not do so. The court said it was possible to hypothesize that Zachry’s conduct fell within the scope of employment, including through a possible company reporting policy or through her role in the preceptorship program.
We hold only that in light of Virginia’s rebuttable presumption and at this early stage of the litigation, Auckland’s amended complaint adequately states a claim for vicarious liability against Gilead.
The dissent
Respondeat superior has limits, and this case is a textbook example of where they apply.
Judge Wilkinson
What it means going forward
The individual defendant remains out of the Virginia case, but the claims against Gilead return to the district court. On remand, Gilead may try to rebut Virginia’s presumption with facts developed later in the case.