Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 1 of 16

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Donald E. Morgan

Elise C.L. Bowling

Office of Corporation Counsel

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael D. Head

Reichel Stohry L.L.P.

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

City of Indianapolis,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

Rosalynn West,

Appellee-Plaintiff

July 13, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1612-CT-2898

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Thomas J. Carroll, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 

49D06-0803-CT-10163 

Mathias, Judge.

[1] The Marion Superior Court ruled that genuine issues of material fact existed as

to whether a police detective acted within the scope of her employment when

she forwarded an e-mail concerning the internal governance of her church to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 2 of 16

other church members using her work-issued computer and e-mail address 

while on duty. From that ruling, her employer now takes this interlocutory 

appeal, claiming it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

[2] We reverse.

Facts and Procedural Posture

[3] In October 2007, Rosalynn West (“West”), Betty Wadlington (“Wadlington”), 

and Jeanette Larkins (“Larkins”) were all members of Mt. Olive Missionary 

Baptist Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. West headed the church’s Christian 

Education Committee and served on its Pastoral Search Committee. 

[4] Wadlington thought West unsuited for those positions and sent a letter to the 

church’s governing bodies urging them to remove her:

I hesitated to write this at first, and then something in my spirit 

would not let it rest. I need to reveal this information to you, so 

that, hopefully, you will make spirit-led decisions in this regard.

. . . It may or may not surprise you to know that Sis. West’s 

behavior has been the subject of much discussion among the 

membership lately, and everyone has the same opinion - SHE 

NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH!!!

This is a woman who is the head of Christian Education and on 

the Pastoral Search Committee - yet her actions/words have been 

anything but Christ-like. . . .

I used to be on the Christian Education Committee - I 

respectfully stopped attending the meetings after I witnessed Sis. 

West SCREAM at an elder member of our church who in no 

way deserved such a level of disrespect. . . .
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 3 of 16

Sis. West made it no secret that she “could not stand” [a former 

interim pastor]. She provoked him in to the behavior he 

displayed. . . . She had to know that if she “attacked” his child 

and wife that he was going to respond - which was exactly what 

she was hoping for. . . .

Removing Sis. West from chairmanship of the CHRISTIAN 

Education Committee is a change that needs to be made. 

Removing her from the pastoral search committee is a change 

that needs to be made. . . .

You don’t need to respond to me and this memo - but you do 

need to respond to the actions of Sis. West - and do it soon or I 

believe our church will live to regret it.

Sincerely, . . . .

Appellant’s App. pp. 23-24 (sic passim). On Sunday, October 14, 2007, 

Wadlington e-mailed a copy of her letter to Larkins and two other church 

members so that “if [they] hear[d] about this situation again - [they’d] know 

what’s going down.” Id. at 22. 

[5] At the time, Larkins was a detective employed by the Indianapolis 

Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) and the City of Indianapolis (“the 

City”) to investigate sex crimes, specifically sexual assault on victims at least

fourteen years old. With IMPD1 approval, she had also occasionally worked as 

a part-time security guard for the church since 1996. Wadlington’s e-mail was 

 

1 Before City and county law enforcement were consolidated in 2007, creating IMPD, Larkins was employed 

in the same position by the now-defunct Marion County Sheriff’s Department. For the sake of simplicity, we 

refer only to IMPD.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 4 of 16

sent to Larkins’s “indygov.org” e-mail address, a City-issued address for City 

business, which Larkins could access only from her City-issued desktop 

computer at her office. Larkins, therefore, did not receive Wadlington’s e-mail 

until she went to work the next day, Monday, October 15, 2007. That evening, 

Larkins read the e-mail and forwarded it without comment to eighty-eight 

church members and one former member. None were City employees.

[6] In February 2008, West sued Larkins, Wadlington, and the City for defamation 

and invasion of privacy. By early 2015, Larkins and Wadlington had declared 

bankruptcy and were dismissed from the suit in February and March of that 

year, respectively. The City as the sole remaining defendant moved for 

summary judgment on April 19, 2016. The trial court denied the City’s motion 

on October 26, 2016, without entering findings or conclusions. The trial court 

certified its ruling for interlocutory appeal on November 28, 2016. We accepted 

the appeal on January 27, 2017.

Standard of Review

[7] Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material 

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 

56(C); Knighten v. E. Chi. Hous. Auth., 45 N.E.3d 788, 791 (Ind. 2015). The 

movant’s burden is to show that its designated evidence, with all conflicts, 

doubts, and reasonable inferences resolved in the nonmovant’s favor, 

affirmatively negates the nonmovant’s claim. Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 

1003 (Ind. 2014). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant to show an issue of 

fact affecting the outcome of the case that requires resolution by the fact-finder. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 5 of 16

Id. We review the trial court’s ruling de novo as a question of law, taking care 

that the nonmovant is not improperly denied her day in court. Id. We may

affirm denial of summary judgment on any theory or basis found in the 

designated evidence. Chang v. Purdue Univ., 985 N.E.2d 35, 45 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2013), trans. denied.

Discussion and Decision

[8] West seeks to hold the City vicariously liable for the torts of its employee 

Larkins under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The City responds that 

Larkins’s conduct in forwarding Wadlington’s e-mail was not done within the 

scope of her employment with the City as a matter of law, and that it is 

therefore entitled to judgment. West replies that whether Larkins was acting 

within the scope of her employment is a question of fact for the jury. We agree 

with the City.

I. The Law of Respondeat Superior and Scope of Employment

[9] Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously 

liable for the wrongful acts of its employee done within the scope of her 

employment. Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281, 283 (Ind. 2008). Generally, if the 

employee’s act was authorized by the employer, “incidental to the conduct 

authorized [by the employer,] or . . . to an appreciable extent[] further[ed] the 

employer’s business[,]” it was done within the scope of employment. Id.

(citations omitted). If the act was instead part of “an independent course of 

conduct not intended by the employee to serve any purpose of the employer[,]”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 6 of 16

it was outside the scope of employment. Id. at 284 (quotations and citation 

omitted).

[10] However, many egregious or otherwise criminal acts, and many intentional 

torts generally, can hardly be said to be “authorized” by an employer or to be 

“intended . . . to serve [a] purpose of the employer.” Id. at 283-84. Nevertheless, 

that fact is not, in itself, a defense to vicarious liability. Warner Trucking, Inc. v. 

Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 686 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 1997) (drunk driving); Stropes 

by Taylor v. Heritage House Childrens Cent., Inc., 547 N.E.2d 244 (Ind. 1989) 

(sexual assault); Southport Little League v. Vaughan, 734 N.E.2d 261 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2000) (child molesting), trans. denied; Gomez v. Adams, 462 N.E.2d 212 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (conversion). The employer is still liable for the natural

and predictable consequences of the conduct of its business by its agents.2

[11] For vicarious liability to attach in such cases, there must be “some minimal 

nexus between the employee's work and the facts of the case.” Harrison Cnty. 

 

2 Not to say foreseeable consequences. “[W]hat is reasonably foreseeable in this context of respondeat superior

is quite a different thing from the foreseeably unreasonable risk of harm that spells negligence. The foresight 

that should impel the prudent man to take precautions is not the same measure as that by which he should 

perceive the harm likely to flow from his long-run activity in spite of all reasonable precautions on his own part.” 

Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 398 F.2d 167, 171 (2d Cir. 1968) (Friendly, J.) (original alterations, 

quotations omitted; emphasis added). The necessity of this latter foresight, and the imposition of liability on 

the employer in such cases generally, flows not from traditional concepts of fault or efficient cost allocation, 

but from “a deeply rooted sentiment that a business enterprise cannot justly disclaim responsibility for 

accidents which may fairly be said to be characteristic of its activities.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Carr v. Wm. 

C. Crowell Co., 171 P.2d 5, 7 (Cal. 1946) (Traynor, J.) (“The employer’s responsibility for the tortious conduct 

of his employee extends far beyond his actual or possible control over the conduct of the servant. It rests on 

the broader ground that every man who prefers to manage his affairs through others remains bound to so 

manage them that third persons are not injured by any breach of legal duty on the part of such others[] . . . .”

(original quotations omitted)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 7 of 16

Sherriff’s Dep’t v. Ayers, 70 N.E.3d 414, 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied.

“[T]he focus must be on how the employment relates to the context in which 

the commission of the wrongful act arose,” Barnett, 889 N.E.2d at 285 (quoting 

Stropes, 547 N.E.2d at 249), and on the degree to which the employee’s acts 

were associated with her employment duties. Id. (discussing Stropes, 547 N.E.2d 

at 250); Gomez, 464 N.E.2d at 223 (no vicarious liability for acts “outside the 

line of [the servant’s] duty and not connected with his master’s business”). “The 

critical inquiry is not whether an employee violates his employer’s rules[,]” but 

whether the “employee’s act originated in activities so closely associated with 

the employment relationship as to fall within its scope.” Warner Trucking, 686 

N.E.2d at 105. If so, the act “further[s] [the] employer’s business” and may 

subject the employer to vicarious liability. Barnett, 889 N.E.2d at 285 

(discussing Stropes, 547 N.E.2d at 249-50).

[12] In this inquiry, we ask how closely the acts complained of resemble acts the 

employee was employed to do, and whether the latter tend naturally or 

predictably to “melt[]” or “ripen[]” into the former, City of Fort Wayne v. Moore, 

706 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied, such that the employer 

may properly be charged with the resulting injury as characteristic of 

conducting its business through others. Where, for example, a children’s 

baseball league engaged an equipment manager to “fit[] youths with baseball 

uniforms behind locked doors in an equipment shed” as the “only adult 

present” and to “assist the youths in dressing and undressing,” the manager’s 

tortious acts of leering at and fondling the children closely resembled the acts of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 8 of 16

supervision and fitting he was engaged to perform, and under the circumstances 

it was predictable that the latter will in some instances melt or ripen into the 

former. Vaughan, 734 N.E. at 266, 271 (affirming denial of defendant’s motions 

for summary judgment and for judgment on the evidence).

3

[13] Importantly, especially in the case before us, whether an act was within the 

scope of employment may be decided as a matter of law. In Konkle v. Henson, 

672 N.E.2d 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), we opined that, 

[i]f some of the employee’s actions were authorized [but others 

were unauthorized], the question of whether the unauthorized 

acts were within the scope of employment is one for the jury. 

However, if none of the employee’s acts were authorized, there is 

no respondeat superior liability and summary judgment is proper.

Id. at 457 (citations omitted). Barnett rejected this rule because it improperly 

focuses on the employer’s permission rather than on the association between 

the employee’s wrongful acts and the acts the employee is employed to do, the 

question at the heart of Stropes. See Barnett, 889 N.E.2d at 285. The question is 

not whether an unauthorized act followed an authorized act or vice versa, but 

 

3

Further, where a home for severely handicapped children employs a nurse’s aide to “minister to residents in 

their beds, remove their clothing, and touch and handle their bodies,” the analysis and result are the same 

with respect to the aide’s sexual assault of a fourteen-year-old resident lacking “the verbal or motor skills 

necessary to perform . . . even the simplest tasks . . . .” Stropes, 547 N.E.2d at 245 (reversing grant of 

defendant’s motion for summary judgment). They are the same again where a private security company 

employs a guard to “request, receive[,] and retain personal identification while investigating disturbances or 

in effecting arrests” and to “retain confiscated personal effects until they were turned over” to supervisors 

with respect to the guard’s conversion of property seized from an arrestee. Gomez, 462 N.E.2d at 223 

(remanding for trial on employer’s vicarious liability).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 9 of 16

whether a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the “employee’s act 

originated in activities so closely associated with the employment relationship 

as to fall within its scope.” Warner Trucking, 686 N.E.2d at 105.

[14] Judgment for the employer as a matter of law is appropriate where “there is not 

even a slight nexus” between the employee’s wrongful acts and her employment 

duties. Ayers, 70 N.E.3d at 418. It has long been settled that mere use of the 

employer’s facilities to commit a wrongful act, Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. 

Gillen, 166 Ind. 321, 76 N.E. 1058, 1059 (1906) (sustaining defendant’s 

demurrer to complaint), cited in Gomez, 462 N.E.2d at 213, or mere access to a

victim afforded by employment, Eagle Mach. Co., Inc. v. Am. Dist. Tel. Co., 127 

Ind. App. 403, 140 N.E.2d 756 (1957) (affirming directed verdict for 

defendant), discussed in Gomez, 462 N.E.2d at 224-25, do not without more 

present a sufficient nexus to merit decision by the fact-finder.

II. Larkins Did Not Act Within the Scope of Her Employment As a Matter of 

Law

[15] In this case, it is undisputed that Larkins was not authorized by her employer to 

send personal e-mails from her City e-mail address and City computer while on 

duty, nor to commit defamation by such means. Appellant’s App. pp. 126, 128 

(IMPD general order on employee computer use). However, that is not the end 

of the inquiry. The question, rather, is whether a reasonable jury could find that 

Larkins’s act of forwarding Wadlington’s e-mail was sufficiently associated 

with the acts Larkins was employed to perform as a sex-crimes detective, such 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 10 of 16

that the City may properly be charged with the resulting injury as characteristic 

of employing sex-crimes detectives. We conclude it could not.

[16] The City’s designated evidence revealed that in October 2007, Larkins’s 

employment duties were to investigate incidents of sexual assault on victims age 

fourteen or older. Id. at 120. She would investigate cases as assigned by a

sergeant or as necessary when called into the field. Id. Cases would originate 

from the reports of victims or uniformed officers at the scene, or from health 

care professionals, school staff, or the Department of Child Services. Id. Larkins 

worked from her office unless she was called into the field. Id. In the field, 

Larkins would seek out and interview witnesses, seek out and interview victims, 

canvass neighborhoods for information, and attempt to identify unknown 

persons. Id. At her office, Larkins’s use of her City-issued computer was a 

“crucial function” of her job. Id. at 122.

[17] Larkins’s act of forwarding Wadlington’s e-mail about West’s role in the 

governance of their church did not appear to resemble or be associated in any 

degree with any Larkins was employed to perform as an IMPD sex-crimes 

detective in that it did not appear to be part of or incidental to an investigation 

into sexual assault. Larkins understood the recipients of her e-mail all to belong 

to a “women’s ministry” at the church, id. at 102, called “Women of Faith.” Id.

at 131. Larkins never showed Wadlington’s e-mail to anyone at her office or 

discussed it with anyone there. Id. at 101. Nothing in Wadlington’s e-mail was 

related to or suggested sexual assault on the part of any church member or 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 11 of 16

against any church member. No church member was suggested to be under 

investigation for sexual assault or a witness in a sexual-assault investigation. 

[18] It is true that Larkins’s use of her City-issued computer and e-mail address was 

central to the performance of her employment duties. However, the mere use of 

her employer’s facilities did not bring her act within the scope of her 

employment. See Doe v. Lafayette Sch. Corp., 846 N.E.2d 691, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2006) (use of employer’s computer and e-mail account), abrogated in nonrelevant 

part by State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jakupko, 881 N.E.2d 654 (Ind. 2008);

4

Gomez, 462 N.E.2d at 213 (generally). The question is not whether the 

employer’s facilities were used, but what the facilities were used for, and 

whether such use was sufficiently associated with the employee’s ordinary 

employment use. As the City suggests, “Modern offices could not function 

without [e-mail]. [To hold] employers vicariously liable for every e-mail their 

employees send from a work e-mail account — whether job-related or not —

would risk an avalanche of litigation against employers without” serving the 

policies underlying vicarious liability. Appellant’s Br. at 14-15. We agree.

[19] The City’s designations sufficiently discharged its initial burden as a summary 

judgment movant by showing that Larkins’s forwarding Wadlington’s e-mail 

 

4

In Doe, we held a school teacher’s sex acts with a minor former student were not within the scope of 

employment as a matter of law where the teacher solicited the student’s baby-sitting services by means of a 

school-owned computer and school-issued e-mail address and then engaged in personal communication with 

the student for over a year before doing the acts complained of, because such conduct was far removed from 

the teacher’s employment duty to communicate with current students about school work. 846 N.E.2d at 702 

(affirming grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 12 of 16

simply had nothing to do with her job as a sex-crimes detective. The burden 

then shifted to West to show a genuine dispute of material fact precluding 

judgment for the City. She did not.

[20] Below, West argued that Larkins’s part-time employment with the church as an 

IMPD-authorized security guard brought her act within the scope of 

employment with the City, and that it was genuinely disputed whether Larkins 

still worked as a security guard for the church in October 2007. West has 

abandoned this position on appeal, arguing instead that a genuine dispute 

existed as to whether Larkin forwarded Wadlington’s e-mail “as a purely 

personal act . . . or, at least in part, as a police officer (intending to warn the 

recipients of [West’s] alleged criminal conduct so that they could be alert and 

stay out of perceived danger) in furtherance of her oath to protect and serve.” 

Appellee’s Br. at 9. By “alleged criminal conduct,” id., West means the 

allegations in Wadlington’s e-mail that West “scream[ed]” at a church member 

and “‘attacked’ [the] child and wife” of the church’s former interim pastor. 

Appellant’s App. p. 23 (original scare quotes). Neither argument is sufficient to 

resist summary judgment.

[21] As an initial matter, neither party, below or on appeal, presented cogent 

argument as to whether the acts of an IMPD officer while moonlighting as a 

private security guard may give rise to vicarious liability for the City.5 We 

 

5 The City dismisses this possibility in its opening brief on appeal in a footnote without citation. Appellant’s 

Br. at 13 n.4; but see generally Farr v. Laidig Concrete, Inc., 810 N.E.2d 1104, 1106-07 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 13 of 16

therefore assume for summary judgment purposes that Larkins’s acts within the 

scope of her employment as an IMPD-authorized church security guard could 

give rise to such liability as a matter of law.

[22] We have held before that a law enforcement officer’s abstract duties to enforce 

the law and protect the public — stated at the highest level of generality, outside 

a concrete employment context, and unconnected to particular acts performed 

in the course of employment — could not sustain vicarious liability for the 

public employer. Ayers, 70 N.E.3d at 418 (reversing denial of defendant’s 

motion to correct error after judgment on jury verdict where sheriff’s deputy 

recklessly allowed spouse to commit suicide with deputy’s department-issued 

firearm); see also Moore, 706 N.E.2d at 608 (reversing denial of defendant’s 

motion for judgment on the evidence where police officer committed battery on 

driver following traffic stop and it appeared officer not employed to “make 

traffic stops outside the [c]ity’s corporate boundaries, out-of-uniform, or in 

unmarked police car”). Thus, here, to the extent that Larkins’s forwarding 

Wadlington’s e-mail was outside the scope of her particularized duties as a sex-

 

denied (discussing vicarious liability for borrowed servants); Johnson v. Motors Dispatch, Inc., 172 IndApp. 285, 

360 N.E.2d 224, 292 (1977) (discussing vicarious liability for dual masters). Though no court of this state 

appears recently to have confronted the question, this court has held before that an off-duty police officer 

working for a private car auction acted within the scope of his public employment when chasing a car thief 

from the auction. Gentry v. Hockett, 498 N.E.2d 405, 406 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (citing Sports, Inc. v. Gilbert, 431 

N.E.2d 534, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (“The employer does not ‘rent’ the state’s police power . . . .”); Tapp v. 

State, 406 N.E.2d 296, 302 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (“[I]t is the nature of the acts performed [that controls] . . . 

.”)). Courts of our sister states have reached opposite conclusions. Compare, e.g., White v. Revco Disc. Drug 

Ctrs., Inc., 33 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn. 2000) (vicarious liability may lie for public employer) with Melendez v. City of 

Los Angeles, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 469 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (no vicarious liability will lie for public employer). It is 

clear at least that the City would not be entitled to summary judgment on these grounds without further 

factual development and argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 14 of 16

crimes detective as discussed above, West cannot resist summary judgment by 

resorting to IMPD’s generalized interest in public safety or Larkins’s purported 

generalized duty to warn the public of any and every instance of “alleged 

criminal conduct . . . .” Appellee’s Br. at 9.

[23] Nor can West successfully rely on Larkins’s duties as a part-time security guard

for the church. West’s own designations reveal that Larkins’s duties as such 

were to protect “the security of the church” by patrolling the church parking lot 

to prevent car break-ins and by guarding the collections after church services

until deposited by a church official. Appellant’s App. p. 166. In this capacity, 

Larkins worked Sundays and Wednesdays. Id. at 165. Larkins stated, without

contradiction by other evidence, that she never worked for the church while on 

duty with IMPD. Id. at 166.

[24] Nothing in Wadlington’s e-mail had any connection with Larkins’s duties as a 

church security guard. West’s designations reveal that Larkins’s duties were to 

protect church property and church members’ property during church services, 

not continuously to keep the peace between church members, warn church 

members of another member’s potentially or arguably hostile conduct, or 

initiate investigations into such conduct. Nothing in West’s designations 

suggests that Larkins was expected to or did perform any work for the church

outside the church on days other than Sundays and Wednesdays, or while she 

was at her office and on-duty with IMPD.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 15 of 16

[25] West essentially seeks a trial on Larkins’s intent or motivation at the time she 

forwarded Wadlington’s e-mail. Our supreme court has questioned the 

relevance of an employee’s purely subjective motivation in such cases. See

Stropes, 547 N.E.2d at 249 (quoting with approval Marston v. Minneapolis Clinic of 

Psychiatry, 329 N.W.2d 306, 311 (Minn. 1982) (“[T]he employee’s motivation 

should not be a consideration[.]”)). Even assuming an employee’s motivation 

could furnish freestanding grounds for trial in the absence of any nexus or 

association of the employee’s acts with the employee’s duties, there is simply no 

evidence or rational inference that Larkins had the motivation ascribed to her 

by West: “to warn the recipients [of Larkins’s e-mail] of [West’s] alleged 

criminal conduct so that they could be alert and stay out of perceived danger[] 

in furtherance of her oath to protect and serve.” Appellant’s Br. at 9.

[26] There is no reasonable inference that Wadlington’s allegation that West 

“scream[ed]” at a church member was an allegation of criminal conduct. 

Appellant’s App. p. 23. Also, Larkins never witnessed West “screaming” at 

anyone. Id. at 167. Nor had Larkins witnessed West “attacking” the former 

interim pastor’s child and wife. Id. at 169. The latter allegation “was just one of 

those things that was buzzing around the church.” Id. It is thus difficult to infer 

on Larkins’s part a need or motivation to warn the church membership of an 

incident she thought was already widely known. Larkins never tried to look 

into the allegations more closely or to find out more details. Id. at 170. Larkins 

never spoke with anyone about the allegations or undertook to discover 

whether they were true. Id. at 171. In fact, “[Larkins] didn’t undertake 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1612-CT-2898 | July 13, 2017 Page 16 of 16

anything. People would send [her] e-mails in reference to the church . . . , 

whether it was encouraging people or relating things that were going on at the 

church[,] and [Larkins] forwarded the e-mails to the group[,]” id., the women’s 

ministry at the church called “Women of Faith.” Id. at 131. This casualness, 

incuriosity, and total lack of urgency on Larkins’s part with respect to the 

incidents described in Wadlington’s e-mail give rise to no reasonable inference 

that Larkins was motivated by a desire “to warn the recipients [of Larkins’s email] of [West’s] alleged criminal conduct so that they could be alert and stay 

out of perceived danger[] in furtherance of her oath to protect and serve.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 9.

Conclusion

[27] The City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because no reasonable jury 

could conclude that Larkins’s forwarding Wadlington’s e-mail was sufficiently 

associated with Larkins’s employment duties as a sex-crimes detective to come 

within the scope of her employment with the City. The trial court therefore 

erred in denying the City’s April 19, 2016, motion for summary judgment. We

reverse that denial and remand with instructions to grant the City’s motion.

[28] Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.