Can illegal employee conduct fall within the scope of employment? Aguila v. Planned Parenthood Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed whether an employee’s illegal conduct can ever fall within the scope of employment for vicarious liability purposes in Aguila v. Planned Parenthood. The decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling employment-related tort claims.

Background and Facts

Alyssa Aguila underwent an abortion procedure at Planned Parenthood, where she encountered Adriana Rodriguez Navarro, a medical assistant and acquaintance. Navarro subsequently disclosed details about Aguila’s procedure to mutual friends and on social media. Aguila sued both Navarro for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and Planned Parenthood for vicarious liability and direct claims of negligent hiring, training, and supervision.

Key Legal Issues

The district court dismissed all claims on multiple grounds, including that Aguila failed to adequately plead an employment relationship between Planned Parenthood and Navarro at the time of disclosure. More significantly, the court ruled that Navarro’s conduct could not fall within the scope of employment as a matter of law because her HIPAA violation potentially exposed Planned Parenthood to civil and criminal liability.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding the district court erred on both employment issues. First, the court determined Aguila’s complaint contained sufficient factual allegations establishing the employment relationship, including statements that Navarro was “acting in the course and scope of her employment…at times discussed herein.”

More importantly, the court rejected the notion that illegal conduct can never fall within the scope of employment as a matter of law. Under Utah law, conduct falls within the scope of employment if it is “of the general kind” the employee is employed to perform and motivated at least in part by serving the employer’s interests. The court emphasized that “an employee does not cease to act within the course of employment merely because [the employee] engages” in illegal activity.

Practice Implications

The decision clarifies that scope of employment determinations are ordinarily questions of fact, not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss. Courts may only decide the issue as a matter of law when “reasonable minds cannot differ” about whether the conduct falls within or outside the employment scope. Practitioners should be prepared to develop a factual record on employment policies, training, and the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged misconduct before seeking summary adjudication on scope of employment issues.