Does the doctrine of respondeat superior apply to Utah Civil Rights Act claims? Sampson v. HBBoys Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals has clarified an important question regarding employer liability under the Utah Civil Rights Act (UCRA): whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applies to private causes of action brought against business establishments for employee discrimination.

Background and Facts

Aaron Sampson experienced two troubling incidents at a Burger King owned by HBBoys, LC. During the first visit, Sampson received an undercooked burger and requested a refund, leading to a confrontation with the shift supervisor. Two weeks later, Sampson returned to the restaurant, where the shift supervisor recognized him, directed racial epithets at him, and told a friend to “take care of him.” The friend subsequently assaulted Sampson both inside the restaurant and in the parking lot. HBBoys terminated the shift supervisor two days after the incident.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether common law principles, specifically respondeat superior, apply to UCRA claims. The district court had applied general agency principles and granted summary judgment, finding that the shift supervisor lacked authority to engage in discriminatory conduct. Sampson argued that respondeat superior was the appropriate doctrine and that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals conducted a three-part analysis to determine whether common law principles apply to the UCRA: (1) whether they are expressly incorporated, (2) whether they are statutorily preempted, and (3) whether their application is consistent with the statute. Finding no express incorporation or preemption, the court concluded that applying respondeat superior was consistent with the UCRA’s purpose and structure. The court noted that since business entities can only act through employees, defining them as “persons” subject to liability under the UCRA assumes a legal mechanism for vicarious liability. Under respondeat superior, the court found that reasonable minds could differ on whether the shift supervisor’s conduct was within her scope of employment, particularly given her responsibility for managing daily operations and handling difficult customers.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts how practitioners approach UCRA cases. The court’s holding that even conduct explicitly prohibited by company policies can create factual disputes about scope of employment means that having anti-discrimination policies alone will not shield employers from liability. The decision also aligns Utah law with federal courts’ application of respondeat superior to analogous civil rights statutes like 42 U.S.C. § 1981. For defense counsel, this ruling emphasizes the importance of developing comprehensive factual records about employee job duties and motivations rather than relying solely on company policies as a defense to vicarious liability.