UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Brenda K. Taite

v. Civil No. 06-cv-428-JM

Paula Morin

O R D E R

This is a tort action that arose out of a deteriorating work

relationship between the parties. Plaintiff Brenda K. Taite

(“Taite”) used to work at the United States Department of

Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration and Medical

Center (“VA”) in White River Junction, Vermont, where she shared

an office with defendant, Paula Morin (“Morin”). On the

afternoon of September 26, 2006, while Taite was sitting at her

desk at work, Morin struck Taite in the face with an office

calendar she was delivering. Based on that incident, Taite filed

an action against Morin in Small Claims Court in Claremont, New

Hampshire. 

On November 17, 2006, the United States Attorney for the

District of New Hampshire (“US Attorney” or “US Attorney’s

Office”) removed the action to this court, arguing the charges

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 17
2

arose under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 

(“FTCA”), because the incident involved a federal employee acting

within the scope of her employment while at work. See Document

no. 1. The US Attorney has moved to substitute the United States

for Morin as the defendant and to dismiss the action, based on

the exclusive remedy for federal employees injured during the

course of employment set forth in the Federal Employees

Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101, etc. (“FECA”). See Document

nos. 5 and 6. Taite challenges the US Attorney’s certification

that Morin was acting within the scope of her employment and

seeks to have the matter remanded back to state court. See

Document nos. 9 and 16. To resolve the factual dispute regarding

whether Morin was acting within the scope of her employment when

the incident occurred, an evidentiary hearing was held on March

8, 2007. See Gutiérrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417, 434

(1995) (allowing district courts to review challenged scope of

employment certifications). As explained more fully below, I

find that Morin was not acting within the scope of her employment

when she struck Taite in the face with the calendar; therefore, I

deny the US Attorney’s motions to substitute it as the defendant

and to dismiss this action (document nos. 5 and 6), grant Taite’s

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 17
3

motion to remand (document no. 9) and order the clerk’s office to

close this case.

Discussion

1. Background

In April 2006, Taite was hired as a claims assistant in the

VA’s Business Office, Patient Services Section. Taite shared an

office with Morin, who occasionally assisted Taite with her work. 

Although the women worked together, their relationship was

somewhat difficult. Once in June 2006, Taite complained about

Morin to a supervisor; however, the two resolved the problem

themselves and nothing further came of it. Taite testified that

during her tenure at the VA, she and Morin had become friends and

frequently had discussed their personal lives. By contrast,

Morin testified that after the June incident she harbored ill

feelings towards Taite and was only professionally cordial to

her. Both women agreed, however, that by September 2006 their

relationship had strained, to the point where Morin basically had

stopped talking to Taite.

The configuration of the office the two women shared is

important to the resolution of this dispute. The office was

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 17
4

split down the middle by a row of filing cabinets that ran about

three quarters of the length of the room, to create two distinct 

office spaces within the one room. The two halves of the room

were connected where the filing cabinets ended, in the front area

of the room nearest the hallway. Along that near wall were two

doors, which lead from the hallway into each half of the office. 

Standing in a doorway facing into the office, Taite’s half was on

the left and Morin’s half was on the right side of the room. 

Each woman had a desk and two chairs on her half of the office. 

Morin had an L-shaped desk that sat along the side wall, then

turned out into the room. Taite’s desk faced out towards the

wall with the doors to the hallway. Taite had a computer monitor

in the middle of her desk and, next to it, an “in-box,” that

consisted of five boxes stacked on top of one another, in the

left front corner of her desk, nearest the filing cabinets and

Morin’s half of the office. 

On the afternoon of September 26, 2006, Taite was sitting at

her desk concentrating on a claim she was processing. She

glanced up when Morin walked through the office door on Morin’s

side of the room and noticed something in Morin’s hand, but 

resumed working. In her peripheral vision, Taite saw Morin

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 4 of 17
5

approach her desk and suddenly throw the paper she was holding at

Taite. The paper was a calendar, that flew across Taite’s desk,

hit the bridge of her nose and smacked her glasses into her left

eye. Startled, Taite jumped up and asked Morin why she had done

that. As that reaction happened, Morin simply turned and walked

over to her desk, where she sat down and began laughing with

another VA employee, Jeffrey Bennett (“Bennett”) who had been

waiting for Morin by her desk. Morin did not answer Taite.

Taite then called out to another employee whom she believed

had witnessed the incident, to confirm what had just happened. 

She also asked Bennett whether Morin had just thrown the calendar

at Taite, and he agreed. Taite immediately contacted several VA

supervisors, including the VA police to report the incident. The

police responded quickly, and took separate statements from Taite

and Morin about the incident. 

Both Morin and Bennett testified at the hearing and denied

Taite’s accusations. Morin explained that, among other things,

she is responsible for ordering and stocking supplies at work. 

On the day in question she was delivering calendars for the new

fiscal year, which begins every October 1. Although Morin

corroborated Taite’s story that she walked into the office

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 5 of 17
6

through the door on her side of the room and approached Taite’s

desk to deliver the calendar, Morin insisted that she carefully

placed it into the top “in-box” of the five-story unit Taite had

in the corner of her desk. Morin also testified that after

putting the calendar there, she returned to her side of the

office to assist Bennett who had been waiting for her. Morin

explicitly denied having tossed the calendar either into Taite’s

in-box unit or onto her desk, and insisted that she carefully set

it into the top in-box. Morin, who is barely 5 feet tall, stated

she was about an arm’s length away from the desk and reached

straight out to place the calendar in the box. Morin also denied

laughing at Taite’s reaction, but admitted that she and Bennett

exchanged looks of disbelief and confusion when Taite began

accusing Morin of having thrown the calendar at her.

Bennett testified next and had difficulty remembering many

details. He appeared flushed and nervous. Bennett initially

could not recall whether he had confirmed that Morin had thrown

the calendar, but then, after a considerable delay, changed his

testimony to deny ever having agreed with Taite, or having

laughed at her, about the incident. Bennett’s description of the

office layout was inconsistent with both Taite’s and Morin’s

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 6 of 17
7

testimony, and his memory of how the incident occurred also was

undermined by the testimony of both Morin and Taite. He said

Morin had entered the office through Taite’s door and had placed

the calendar somewhere on Taite’s desk, but was not sure where

and stated he had not been paying attention to what was happening

on that half of the office. He recalled clearly, however, how

upset Taite was. He described having been surprised by the

entire incident. When Taite began telephoning supervisors, he

and Morin left the office. Finally, Bennett testified that he

was not aware of any ill-will or hard feelings between Morin and

Taite.

2. Analysis

a. Scope of Employment Certification

The critical issue in this dispute is whether Morin’s

conduct fell within the scope of her employment, as the defense

asserts, or constituted an unexpected assault and battery, as

plaintiff alleges. The law clearly allows the US Attorney’s

office to remove the matter from state court to this court and to

substitute the United States as the defendant, based on a

certified representation that Morin was acting within the scope

of her employment when the complained of incident occurred. See

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 7 of 17
8

28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2) (requiring removal and substitution of the

United States as defendant when employee defendant was acting

within the scope of employment). If, as a federal employee,

Morin acted within the scope of her employment, then the law

requires the claim be construed against the government, and the

remedies made available under the FTCA preclude any further

relief Taite might otherwise be able to obtain against Morin

personally. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1); see also Aversa v.

United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1207-08 (1st Cir. 1996) (explaining

how the amended FTCA made employees absolutely immune from suit

for torts committed within the scope of employment). This

court’s jurisdiction over the matter depends on Morin having

acted within the scope of her employment. See 28 U.S.C. §

1346(b)(1) (granting federal district courts exclusive

jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States

for money damages for personal injury caused by the negligent or

wrongful act of a government employee).

The FTCA allows injured parties to recover from the federal

government for torts federal employees commit against them. The

law holds the United States liable for “tort claims, in the same

manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 8 of 17
9

circumstances,” id. § 2674, “for injury or loss . . . caused by

the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the

agency while acting within the scope of his office or

employment.” Id. § 2672. Under Vermont law, which applies here

because the incident occurred in Vermont, see Aversa, 99 F.3d at

1208-09 (construing the FTCA to apply the law of respondeat

superior of the state where the alleged tortious conduct happened

and citing authority); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (looking

to the law of the place where the act occurred to determine

liability), conduct occurs within the scope of employment and,

therefore, is attributable to the employer when:

(a) it is of the kind the servant is 

employed to perform;

(b) it occurs substantially within the

authorized time and space limits; 

(c) it is actuated, at least in part, by

a purpose to serve the master; and

(d) in a case in which the force is 

intentionally used by the servant 

against another, it is not unexpectable

by the master. 

Brueckner v. Norwich Univ., 169 Vt. 118, 122-23, 730 A.2d 1086,

1090-91 (1999) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 229(1)

(1958) to discuss how the doctrine of respondeat superior holds

an employer vicariously liable for an employee’s torts). Conduct

is not within the scope of employment if, among other things, it

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 9 of 17
10

is different in kind from that authorized by the employer. See

id. (citing Rest. § 228(2)).

The evidence here fairly demonstrated that Morin’s job

duties included stocking supplies. The undisputed evidence also

showed that Taite was hit by a calendar which the VA regularly

used in its offices, and that is was near the start of a new

fiscal year when calendars would have been routinely distributed. 

The record amply supports the conclusion, therefore, that Morin

was performing a duty she was employed to do, during regular

business hours, for purposes of satisfying the first three

elements of the “scope of employment” inquiry. 

The fourth element, however, involving the intentional use

of force unexpected by the employer derails the government’s

case. Under no set of circumstances is it reasonable to assume,

nor did the evidence suggest, that the VA would have expected 

Morin to hit Taite in the face with a calendar, or that the VA

would have authorized Morin to throw a calendar at another

employee, in the regular course of performing the job of stocking

office supplies. While the evidence was contradictory about

whether or not Morin intended to throw the calendar at Taite,

after carefully considering all of the testimony, including the

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 10 of 17
11

statements on record, I find Taite to have been more credible

than Morin.

Morin’s claim that she carefully placed the calendar in the

top slot of Taite’s 5-unit inbox was not convincing. Given her

admission that she was approximately an arm’s length distance

from the desk, her short stature, and the undisputed height of

the inbox, it seemed highly unlikely that she, in fact, actually 

set the calendar into the box as she claimed. She admitted that

her relationship with Taite was strained and explained that she

knew Bennet was waiting for her, both of which support the

inference that Morin might have more casually tossed the calendar

up onto the top of the inbox. Morin failed to offer any

explanation whatsoever as to why Taite perceived to have been hit

in the face with the calendar. Her complete denial of the

incident just did not comport with common sense. 

More importantly, I did not find Morin to be a credible

witness and, by contrast, found Taite to be credible. As

mentioned above, Morin completely denied that she could have done

anything which might have caused Taite to have been startled by

the calendar. Taite, on the other hand, conceded that she only

saw Morin approach from her peripheral vision. She also stated

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 11 of 17
12

that she was shocked when the calendar hit her face, which

explained her repeated questions about what had just happened. 

Although Taite testified that Morin and Bennett were laughing at

her reaction, Morin insisted she only looked at Bennett in

bewilderment. Bennett’s abrupt change in testimony about what he

could remember regarding how he responded to Taite was strikingly

disingenuous, which further undermined Morin’s credibility. In

yet another contrast, Taite testified she caused their problem

the previous June by mistakenly reporting Morin and was glad to

have “mended fences.” Morin’s claim that she was never friendly

with Taite and had only a superficially cordial relationship with

her was undermined by Taite’s detailed knowledge of private

aspects of Morin’s personal life. In short, Morin’s testimony

was so consistently self-serving that it actually diminished her

credibility and undermined her version of the incident. 

The evidence supports the conclusion that Morin hit Taite in

the face with the calender. While the contact might have been

the result of Morin negligently tossing the calendar rather than

intentionally aiming to hit Taite in the face, Morin would not

concede any carelessness or negiglence. I decline to accept

Morin’s claim that she in fact set the calendar in Taite’s inbox. 

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 12 of 17
13

Under these circumstances, with nothing to support an inference

of an honest mistake or even excessive negligence, I find the VA

could not have expected Morin to have intended to hit another

employee with the calendars she was responsible for distributing. 

I further find that nothing in the offensive way Morin

distributed the calendar served to advance the VA’s interests, as

the resulting animosity and employee upset represented by the

instant lawsuit evidences. See Brueckner, 169 Vt. at 122-23, 730

A.2d at 1090-91 (discussing how the employee’s tortious conduct

must advance the employer’s interests for vicarious liability to

attach). Morin’s intentional conduct cannot be construed as

having been expected, in any manner, by the VA. 

Accordingly, I conclude Morin was not acting within the

scope of her employment when Taite was struck in the face with

the calendar Morin was delivering. Plaintiff’s Motion to

Challenge the US Attorney Scope of Employment Certification

(document no. 16), therefore, is granted. See Gutiérrez de

Martinez, 515 U.S. at 434 (finding FTCA allows court review of 

certification); see also Vélez-Díaz v. Vega-Irizarry, 421 F.3d

71, 75 (1st Cir. 2005) (explaining provisional nature of scope of

employment certification).

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 13 of 17
14

b. Removal, Substitution and Dismissal

Having concluded that Morin was not acting within the scope

of her employment, the disposition of the pending motions follows

easily. The FTCA explicitly exempts certain intentional torts

from its waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity, including

the torts alleged here of assault and battery. See 28 U.S.C. §

2680(h); but see Aversa, 99 F.3d at 1209 (explaining how the

excepted intentional torts of § 2680(h) still may give rise to

respondeat superior liability if they occurred within the scope

of employment). The alleged assault and battery here describe

conduct that cannot be considered as expected by the VA when it

employed Morin as a claims assistant. Under Vermont law then,

the charged conduct falls outside the scope of her employment

and, therefore, is not actionable under the FTCA. See id.

(explaining when 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) applies). Because Morin

acted outside the scope of her employment when she committed the

charged assault and battery, she should be re-substituted as the

defendant in this action. See Vélez-Díaz v. Vega-Irizarry, 421

F.3d at 75 (“Where plaintiffs are able to show that the employees

acted outside the scope of their employment, the employees may be

re-substituted as the party defendants.”). Defendant’s Motion to

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 14 of 17
15

Substitute the United States as Defendant (document no. 5) is,

therefore, denied.

The US Attorney next argues this action should be dismissed,

because claims for money damages asserted by federal employees

against the United States must be made under FECA. See 5 U.S.C.

§ 8116(c) (providing FECA as the exclusive remedy for claims

against the United States for damages sustained during the course

of employment); see also Bruni v. United States, 964 F.2d 76, 78

(1st Cir. 1992) (dismissing action for lack of jurisdiction where

substantial question existed whether the complained of injury was

covered by FECA). FECA is a federal worker’s compensation

statute, for losses sustained by federal employees during the

course of employment. See 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a) (requiring the

United States to compensate employees for personal injuries

sustained while in the performance of his duties). While the US

Attorney correctly argues that this court would not have

jurisdiction if the matter were to proceed against the United

States, see Bruni, 964 F.2d at 80, FECA does not apply because

the United States is not the defendant in this action, Morin is. 

Cf. id. (United States Post Office allegedly responsible for

dangerous work conditions that resulted in worker’s death); cf.

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 15 of 17
16

Pourier v. United States, 138 F.3d 1267, 1268 (3rd Cir. 1998)

(FTCA claim against federal contractor and federal government is

preempted by FECA). Under the circumstances here, where the

claim was not brought against the United States, nor can the

United States be substituted as the defendant for purposes of

determining liability for the alleged assault and battery, FECA

simply does not apply. Accordingly, defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss (document no. 6) is denied.

Finally, plaintiff has moved to remand this action back to

Claremont District Court. Since this action involves a tort

action between private individuals who are both residents of New

Hampshire, and does not present any federal question, this court

lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

the action to Small Claims Court in Claremont, New Hampshire

(document no. 9), therefore, is granted. 

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 16 of 17
17

Conclusion

As explained in above, the pending motions are resolved as

follows:

Defendant’s Motion to Substitute the United States

of America as Defendant for Paula Morin, 

document no. 5, denied;

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, 

document no. 6, denied;

Plaintiff’s Motion to Challenge US Attorney Scope

of Employment Certification for Paula Morin, 

document no. 16, granted;

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to Small Claims District

Court in Claremont, New Hampshire, 

document nos. 9 & 38, granted.

The clerk is ordered to enter judgment consistent with these

rulings and to close the case. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/ James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 18, 2005 

cc: Brenda K. Taite, pro se

T. David Plourde, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 40 Filed 04/18/07 Page 17 of 17