Present: All the Justices 

KATRINA Q. PLUMMER 

OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. 

v. Record No. 952306 September 13, 1996 

CENTER PSYCHIATRISTS, LTD. 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE 

E. Preston Grissom, Judge 

 The sole issue we consider in this appeal is whether the 

trial court erred by holding, as a matter of law, that a 

psychologist who had sexual intercourse with a patient was acting 

outside the scope of his employment, thus rendering the doctrine 

of respondeat superior inapplicable. 

 Because this case was decided on demurrer, we will state the 

facts "in accordance with well-established principles that a 

demurrer admits the truth of all material facts that are properly 

pleaded, facts which are impliedly alleged, and facts which may 

be fairly and justly inferred from alleged facts." Cox Cable 

Hampton Roads v. City of Norfolk, 242 Va. 394, 397, 410 S.E.2d 

652, 653 (1991). 

 Dr. Roque Gerald, a licensed clinical psychologist, was 

employed by the defendant, Center Psychiatrists, Ltd. Gerald 

provided therapy and counseling services to the plaintiff, 

Katrina Q. Plummer, who was suffering from depression. Gerald 

was "cognizant of [the] [p]laintiff's psychological and emotional 

history, which included her prior attempts at suicide," and he 

knew "that she was suffering from suicide ideation, and 

depression." 

 On February 8, 1989, while the plaintiff was receiving 
counseling from Gerald at the defendant's place of business, 

Gerald committed "an act of sexual intercourse upon [p]laintiff 

[which] constituted an assault and battery upon her since, Dr. 

Roque Gerald, through his education, experience and knowledge of 

[p]laintiff overcame her will so that she was unable to act with 

volition." 

 The plaintiff filed her motion for judgment against the 

defendant seeking to recover, inter alia, damages caused by the 

assault and battery. The plaintiff alleged that Gerald was an 

employee, agent, and servant of the defendant and that he was 

acting within the scope of his employment when he engaged in 

sexual intercourse with her. 

 The defendant filed a demurrer to the plaintiff's motion for 

judgment asserting, among other things, that as a matter of law, 

it cannot be liable to the plaintiff because Gerald was not 

acting in the course of his employment when he committed the act 

of sexual intercourse and, therefore, the doctrine of respondeat

superior is not applicable. The trial court granted the 

defendant's demurrer. We awarded the plaintiff an appeal. 

 The plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by 

dismissing her claim for assault and battery against the 

defendant because she pled sufficient facts in her motion for 

judgment which, if proven at trial, would create a jury issue on 

the question whether Gerald was acting within the course of his 

employment when he committed an act of sexual intercourse upon 

her. The defendant argues that, as a matter of law, Gerald was 

not acting within the scope of his employment, but "solely for 
his own personal interests." We disagree with the defendant. 

 Initially, we observe that pursuant to the doctrine of 

respondeat superior, an employer is liable for the tortious acts 

of its employee if the employee was performing his employer's 

business and acting within the scope of his employment when the 

tortious acts were committed. Kensington Associates v. West, 234 

Va. 430, 432, 362 S.E.2d 900, 901 (1987); McNeill v. Spindler, 

191 Va. 685, 694, 62 S.E.2d 13, 17 (1950). Additionally, "[w]hen 

an employer-employee relationship has been established, 'the 

burden is on the [employer] to prove that the [employee] was not

acting within the scope of his employment when he committed the 

act complained of, and . . . if the evidence leaves the question 

in doubt it becomes an issue to be determined by the jury.'" 

Kensington Associates, 234 Va. at 432-33, 362 S.E.2d at 901 

(quoting Broaddus v. Standard Drug Co., 211 Va. 645, 653-54, 179 

S.E.2d 497, 504 (1971)). 

 We recently discussed the principles which are dispositive 

of this dispute in Commercial Business Systems v. BellSouth, 249 

Va. 39, 453 S.E.2d 261 (1995). BellSouth awarded Commercial 

Business Systems a contract to repair certain equipment 

manufactured by Digital Equipment Corporation. William Jordan, a 

BellSouth employee, had negotiated and administered the contract 

with Commercial Business Systems. 

 Jerry H. Waldrop, another BellSouth employee, replaced 

Jordan as the contract negotiator and administrator. 

Subsequently, Waldrop made false statements about Commercial 

Business Systems' financial status and its performance under the 
contract. Waldrop also informed Commercial Business Systems that 

the contract would not be renewed, and he awarded another company 

the contract. We observed that the record in Commercial Business 

Systems "clearly established that Waldrop committed serious 

violations of BellSouth's conflict-of-interest rules. 

Waldrop established his own company, called EntraCom 

Corporation, as a means to conduct business with 

Halifax and other companies that provided services to 

BellSouth, and he accepted bribes from Halifax in the 

form of 'kickbacks' on transactions between Halifax and 

EntraCom." 

Id. at 43, 453 S.E.2d at 265. 

 In Commercial Business Systems, we noted that "[i]n 

determining whether an agent's tortious act is imputed to the 

principal, the doctrine's primary focus is on whether the 

activity that gave rise to the tortious act was within or without 

the agent's scope of employment." Id. at 44, 453 S.E.2d at 265. 

 We also stated the test that we believe is applicable here: 

 "The courts . . . have long since departed from the 

rule of non-liability of an employer for wilful or 

malicious acts of his employee. Under the modern view, 

the wilfulness or wrongful motive which moves an 

employee to commit an act which causes injury to a 

third person does not of itself excuse the employer's 

liability therefor. The test of liability is not the 

motive of the employee in committing the act complained 

of, but whether that act was within the scope of the 

duties of employment and in the execution of the 

service for which he was engaged." 

Id. at 45, 453 S.E.2d at 266 (quoting Tri-State Coach Corp. v. 

Walsh, 188 Va. 299, 305-06, 49 S.E.2d 363, 366 (1948)). 

 Applying this test in Commercial Business Systems, we 

observed: 

 "Unquestionably, Waldrop's conduct was outrageous and 

violative of his employer's rules. His motive was 

personal -- to advance his self-interest, rather than 
the interest of BellSouth. And yet, Waldrop's willful 

and malicious acts were committed while Waldrop was 

performing his duties as BellSouth's contract 

negotiator and administrator and in the execution of 

the services for which he was employed. 

 We hold, therefore, that the evidence presents a 

jury issue whether Waldrop acted within the scope of 

his employment when he committed the wrongful acts." 

Commercial Business Systems, 249 Va. at 46, 453 S.E.2d at 266. 

 We are of opinion that, here, the facts alleged in the 

motion for judgment are sufficient to support the plaintiff's 

legal conclusion that Gerald acted within the scope of his 

employment when he committed the wrongful acts against the 

plaintiff. According to the plaintiff's allegations, Gerald's 

act was committed while he was performing his duties as a 

psychologist in the execution of the services for which he was 

employed, in this instance, counseling and therapy. 

Additionally, Gerald's education, experience, and knowledge of 

the plaintiff, who was depressed and had suicidal ideations, 

enabled him "[to overcome] her will so that she was unable to act 

with volition." Furthermore, at this stage of the proceedings, 

there simply are not sufficient facts which would permit us to 

hold, as a matter of law, that the defendant has met its burden 

of showing that its employee was not acting within the scope of 

his employment. See Broaddus, supra, 211 Va. at 653-54, 179 

S.E.2d at 504. 

 The defendant asserts that our recent decision in Tomlin v. 

McKenzie, 251 Va. 478, 468 S.E.2d 882 (1996), supports his 

contention that Gerald's acts, as a matter of law, were outside 

the scope of his employment. We disagree. In Tomlin, the 
plaintiffs filed their motion for judgment against Patsye D. 

McKenzie, a licensed clinical social worker, and her employer, a 

professional corporation owned solely by McKenzie. The motion 

for judgment alleged that McKenzie provided family therapy to the 

plaintiffs pursuant to an order of referral by the Juvenile & 

Domestic Relations District Court of the City of Chesapeake. The 

motion for judgment further alleged that in the course of 

providing that therapy, McKenzie and her employer intentionally 

and maliciously committed certain acts constituting malpractice 

and defamation. 

 The defendants filed a plea in bar, seeking dismissal of the 

action on the basis that McKenzie and her employer were entitled 

to common law and statutory immunity. McKenzie and her employer 

asserted that common law sovereign immunity protected them from 

civil suits for actions performed in McKenzie's capacity as a 

court-appointed officer. We reversed the judgment of the trial 

court which had sustained their motions because McKenzie's 

conduct was outside the scope of the court-ordered referral. 

Tomlin is not implicated here. McKenzie's employer did not 

claim that she was acting outside the scope of her employment 

when she committed the allegedly tortious acts. Rather, we 

reviewed the facts pled in the plaintiffs' motion for judgment, 

considered her specific factual allegations, applied the 

principles relevant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and 

held that the intentional torts alleged were outside the scope of 

McKenzie's court-appointed role. Here, however, we do not 

concern ourselves with sovereign immunity, but with the doctrine 
of respondeat superior. Our review of the facts and reasonable 

inferences therefrom alleged in the plaintiff's motion for 

judgment compels us to conclude that she has pled sufficient 

facts which, if proven, would create a jury issue whether Gerald 

was acting within the scope of his employment. 

 Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the trial court 

and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

Reversed and remanded. 

JUSTICE KOONTZ, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE CARRICO and JUSTICE 

COMPTON join, dissenting. 

 I respectfully dissent. 

 In my view, the trial court correctly determined that the 

facts alleged and those impliedly alleged in Katrina Q. Plummer's 

motion for judgment are insufficient, as a matter of law, to 

support her legal conclusion that Dr. Roque Gerald, her 

psychologist, acted within the scope of his employment with 

Center Psychiatrists, Ltd. when he "seduced [her] into an act of 

sexual intercourse." Accordingly, I disagree with the majority's 

conclusion that Plummer's allegations present a jury issue and 

that Commercial Business Systems v. BellSouth, 249 Va. 39, 453 

S.E.2d 261 (1995), is dispositive of this appeal. 

 Surely it is undisputed that sexual intimacy between 

professional counselors and their clients is unethical, has no 

place in the therapy process, and is universally condemned. See, 

e.g., American Psychological Association, Standard 4.05 

(1992)("Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with 
current patients or clients"). Although we have not previously 

addressed a case involving a sexual assault by a counselor in 

violation of these accepted standards to determine the liability 

of the counselor's employer under the doctrine of respondeat

superior, I agree with the majority that the critical issue 

becomes whether the employee was acting within the scope of his 

employment when he committed the tortious act. 

 Our cases have made it clear that the employer is not a 

surety for the conduct of the employee. Rather, we have said 

 "[An employer] is not liable for every wrong which [an 

employee] may commit during the continuance of an 

employment. . . . If the [employee] steps aside from 

his [employer's] business and is engaged in an 

independent venture of his own, the relation of 

[employer] and [employee] is for the time suspended. 

The test is whether the act complained of was done in 

the course of the [employee's] employment, or outside 

of it." 

Abernathy v. Romaczyk, 202 Va. 328, 332, 117 S.E.2d 88, 91 

(1960)(quoting McNeill v. Spindler, 191 Va. 685, 694-95, 62 

S.E.2d 13, 18 (1950)). 

 In Tri-State Coach Corp. v. Walsh, 188 Va. 299, 49 S.E.2d 

363 (1948), we noted that: "the exact line of demarcation between 

what acts are within the scope of employment and what are not is, 

at times, difficult of ascertainment. The inferences to be drawn 

from the facts proved are often within the province of the jury." 

Id. at 308, 49 S.E.2d at 367. In Kensington Associates v. West, 

234 Va. 430, 362 S.E.2d 900 (1987), we further explained: 

 when the undisputed evidence shows that an employee's 

deviation from his employer's business is slight and 

not unusual, or, on the other hand, great and unusual, 

a court shall determine, as a matter of law, whether 

the employee was acting in the scope of his employment. 

 When, however, the evidence places the case between 
these two extremes, the issue is for a jury. 

Id. at 433, 362 S.E.2d at 902. 

 Assuming that all the allegations in Plummer's motion for 

judgment are true, they clearly establish that Dr. Gerald's 

"seduction" of Plummer was not an act intended by him to advance 

or maintain his employer's business. It is equally clear that in 

undertaking that seduction, Dr. Gerald must have stepped aside 

from the business of Center Psychiatrists, Ltd. and that he 

engaged in an independent venture of his own. Under such 

circumstances, and as we held in Kensington Associates, a jury 

issue was not presented and the trial court correctly determined 

that Dr. Gerald's act was a "great and unusual" deviation from 

his employer's business and, thus, not committed within the scope 

of his employment as a matter of law. 

 Our decision in Commercial Business Systems does not dictate 

a contrary conclusion. There the tortious act of the employee 

was committed while the employee was performing the duties of his 

employment and in the execution of the services for which he was 

employed. Thus, we held that the facts presented a jury issue 

whether he acted within the scope of his employment when he 

committed the wrongful acts. In the present case, the deviation 

from the employer's business is so extreme that no jury issue is 

implicated. 

 In short, while the limits of the scope of employment in a 

given case may be sufficiently broad to include various willful 

and malicious acts of the employee, a sexual assault upon a 

client by a professional counselor or psychologist falls well 
beyond that scope as a matter of law. 

 Finally, I am compelled to relate that the majority of our 

sister jurisdictions are in accord with the view I would take of 

this appeal. See, e.g., P.S. and R.S. v. Psychiatric Coverage, 

Ltd., 887 S.W.2d 622, 625 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)(adopting majority 

view and citing exemplar decisions, Id. at n.4); Sharples v. 

State, 793 P.2d 175, 176-77 (Haw. 1990)(respondeat superior does 

not apply even though counselor maintained sexual intercourse 

"was part of his therapy," Id. at 176 n.1). See generally

Russell G. Donaldson, Annotation, Liability of Hospital or Clinic 

for Sexual Relationships with Patients by Staff Physicians, 

Psychologists, and Other Healers, 45 A.L.R.4th 289 (1986). 

 For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the trial 

court.