Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-01031/USCOURTS-ca4-13-01031-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1031

JOSEPH ANTONIO; BULAN JULES−ANTONIO; MICHAEL CLARK; CAROLYN 

CLARK; THOMAS COOPER; ANGEL FOUNTAIN−COOPER; GREG GIBBS; 

NATALIE GIBBS; GEORGE HALEY; YVONNE HALEY; JACQUE 

HIGHTOWER; DAWN HIGHTOWER; KHARI JACKSON; BELINDA JACKSON; 

HAROLD JEWETT; CYNTHIA JEWETT; MICHAEL JOHNSON; CRYSTAL 

JOHNSON; JAGATH KANKANAMAGE; KETH KANKANAMAGE; KEITH 

ROBINSON; TAKEYSHA ROBINSON; EVERTON ROWE; BEVERLY ROWE; 

ERIK SMITH; SHARON SMITH; LEONARD SWOOPES; EVORA SWOOPES; 

KENDALL WALKER; SAMANTHA WALKER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

DERRICK POTTS; TERRI ROOKARD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SSA SECURITY, INC., d/b/a Security Services of America,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

JEREMY DANIEL PARADY; PATRICK STEPHEN WALSH; MICHAEL 

MCINTOSH EVERHART; ROY THOMAS MCCANN; SECURITY SERVICES OF 

AMERICA, LLC; ABM INDUSTRIES, INC.; AARON LEE SPEED,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:05-cv-02982-AW)

Appeal: 13-1031 Doc: 42 Filed: 04/03/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Argued: January 30, 2014 Decided: April 3, 2015

Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Floyd wrote the opinion, 

in which Judge King and Judge Wynn joined.

ARGUED: Ruthanne Mary Deutsch, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD 

LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Gary Alvin Bryant, 

WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. ON 

BRIEF: Isabelle M. Thabault, Megan Whyte, WASHINGTON LAWYERS 

COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C.; 

Steven H. Schulman, Joseph L. Decker, Maka Y. Hutson, AKIN GUMP 

STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. 

Joseph P. Moriarty, J. David Crain, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, 

Norfolk, Virginia; Gerry H. Tostanoski, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, 

LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Appeal: 13-1031 Doc: 42 Filed: 04/03/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

FLOYD, Circuit Judge:

The appellants in this case (“the Homeowners”) consist of 

30 victims of one of the largest residential arsons in Maryland 

history. In this lawsuit, they seek to hold SSA Security, Inc. 

(SSA) responsible for the arsons, which were allegedly committed

by one of its security guards. The district court granted 

summary judgment to SSA on the Homeowners’ negligence-based 

claims and on their claim under the Maryland Security Guards Act

(“the Act”). In doing so, the district court concluded that the 

Act merely codified the common-law doctrine of respondeat 

superior--in other words, that the Act did not expand that 

doctrine in regard to security companies, contrary to the 

Homeowners’ contentions.

On appeal, we affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the 

Homeowners’ negligence-based claims, but certified to the Court 

of Appeals of Maryland the following question:

Does the Maryland Security Guards Act, Md. 

Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 19-501, 

impose liability beyond common law 

principles of respondeat superior such that 

an employer may be responsible for off-duty 

criminal acts of an employee if the employee 

planned any part of the off-duty criminal 

acts while he or she was on duty?

Antonio v. SSA Sec., Inc., 749 F.3d 227, 237-38 (4th Cir. 2014).

On March 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals of Maryland answered

the question in the negative. Antonio v. SSA Sec., Inc., Misc. 

Appeal: 13-1031 Doc: 42 Filed: 04/03/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

No. 1, Sept. Term, 2014, 2015 WL 859831 (Md. Mar. 2, 2015). 

After thoroughly analyzing § 19–501’s plain language, its 

context in the Maryland Code, its legislative history, and 

policy considerations of alternative interpretations, the court 

held “that the Maryland Security Guards Act § 19–501 has the 

same meaning as Maryland’s common law doctrine of respondeat 

superior.” Id. at *12. The Homeowners do not challenge the 

district court’s analysis under the common law and therefore 

concede that they cannot satisfy the doctrine. See Projects 

Mgmt. Co. v. Dyncorp Int’l LLC, 734 F.3d 366, 376 (4th Cir. 

2013). Thus, we affirm, in full, the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment in SSA’s favor.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 13-1031 Doc: 42 Filed: 04/03/2015 Pg: 4 of 4