Boykin v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a teacher’s sexual assault of his student was outside the scope of his employment even though the assault occurred at school and during regular school hours
• holding that the District was not liable under respondeat superior for a teacher’s sexual assault of a student, even though it occurred on school grounds and during school hours, because the criminal misconduct was not within the scope of the teacher’s employment
• holding that the District was not liable under respondeat superior for a teacher’s sexual assault of a student, even though it occurred on school grounds and during school hours, because the criminal misconduct was not within the scope of the teacher’s employment
• finding irrelevant whether the employee was “on duty” at the time of the incident in question where the motive was personal
• teacher was not acting within scope of employment when he sexually assaulted student because teacher was not then performing teaching responsibilities
• sexual assault of a special education student by a school staff member was outside the scope of employment because the conduct was not an “outgrowth of any action undertaken in the employer’s behalf”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).