Opinion ID: 1610277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to pearl river valley water supply district.

Text: ¶ 11. Cockrell contends there is a genuine issue of material of fact regarding whether Officer James was acting in the course and scope of his employment with the District during the incidents which occurred on the nights of June 28 and June 30, 1998. Cockrell argues Officer James's conduct, although inappropriate, did not rise to the level of criminal conduct. Cockrell contends Officer James's action of hugging Cockrell was similar to an officer consoling a victim of a crime. Cockrell does admit that Officer James's action of kissing her is more difficult to view as within the course and scope of his employment; however, Cockrell does not agree that those actions amounted to a criminal act which would preclude a claim under the MTCA. ¶ 12. The District argues that although Officer James acted within the course and scope of his duties when he arrested Cockrell, his later conduct, which was intended to satisfy his lustful desires, was outside the scope of his employment with it. The District also contends that the inappropriate conduct of Officer James constituted simple assault pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-37 (Rev.2000). [1] ¶ 13. The District is a governmental entity of the State of Mississippi, as defined by the MTCA; therefore, this case was brought pursuant to the MTCA. See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1 et seq. Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-5(1), a governmental entity, such as the District, can be liable under the MTCA for the misconduct of its employee if that misconduct occurred while the employee was acting within the course and scope of employment. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-7(7) states that it shall be a rebuttable presumption that any act or omission of an employee within the time and at the place of his employment is within the course and scope of his employment. However, a governmental entity is not liable for any misconduct of its employees which occur outside the course and scope of that employee's employment such as conduct which constitutes fraud, malice, libel, slander, defamation or any criminal offense other than traffic violations. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-46-5(2) & 11-46-7(2). Therefore, pursuant to the MTCA, the District is not liable nor considered to have waived immunity and Cockrell may not recover damages if Officer James's conduct (1) occurred outside the course and scope of his employment or (2) constituted a criminal offense. ¶ 14. Mississippi law provides that an activity must be in furtherance of the employer's business to be within the scope and course of employment. L.T. ex rel. Hollins v. City of Jackson, 145 F.Supp.2d 750, 757 (S.D.Miss.2000) (citing Estate of Brown ex rel Brown v. Pearl River Valley Opportunity, Inc., 627 So.2d 308 (Miss.1993)), aff'd mem., 245 F.3d 790 (5th Cir.2000). To be within the course and scope of employment, an activity must carry out the employer's purpose of the employment or be in furtherance of the employer's business. Seedkem South, Inc. v. Lee, 391 So.2d 990, 995 (Miss.1980). See also Estate of Brown, 627 So.2d at 311. Therefore, if an employee steps outside his employer's business for some reason which is not related to his employment, the relationship between the employee and the employer is temporarily suspended and this is so `no matter how short the time and the [employer] is not liable for [the employee's] acts during such time.' Id. at 311. An employee's personal unsanctioned recreational endeavors are beyond the course and scope of his employment. Hollins, 145 F.Supp.2d at 757. See also Cook Constr. Co. v. Smith, 397 So.2d 536, 537 (Miss.1981). ¶ 15. In Hollins, Officer Kerry Collins, a Jackson Police officer, was on duty when he came upon the parked car of L.T., a minor, and her boyfriend, who were about to engage in sexual activity. 145 F.Supp.2d at 754. Officer Collins instructed L.T. to take her boyfriend home, and he would follow her to make sure she followed his orders. Id. After L.T. dropped off her boyfriend, Officer Collins continued to follow her until he pulled L.T. over. Id. Officer Collins then instructed L.T. to follow him to his apartment or else he would inform L.T.'s parents of her activities. Id. L.T. followed Officer Collins to his apartment where they engaged in sexual activity. Id. Upon returning home, L.T. told her parents everything that had happened. Id. L.T. and her parents filed suit against Officer Collins, the City of Jackson and the Westwood Apartments, where Officer Collins lived rent free in return for his services as a security guard. Id. at 752-53. After Officer Collins was dismissed from the case due to a procedural error, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment. Id. at 752. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City finding that Officer Collins acted outside the course and scope of his employment with the Jackson Police Department. Id. at 757. ¶ 16. In Tichenor v. Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, 32 F.3d 953 (5th Cir.1994), Tichenor sued the Archdiocese of New Orleans for damages that allegedly resulted from his sexual molestation by a Catholic priest. The Fifth Circuit found that the priest was not acting within the course and scope of his employment. Id. at 959. The Fifth Circuit held that smoking marijuana and engaging in sexual acts with minor boys in no way furthered the interests of his employer. Id. at 960. ¶ 17. The Southern District of Mississippi and the Fifth Circuit, applying Mississippi law, have held that sexual misconduct falls outside the course and scope of employment. There is no question that Officer James was within the course and scope of his employment when he first stopped Cockrell for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. However, when Officer James diverted from his employment for personal reasons, he was no longer acting in the furtherance of his employer's interests. The District offered sufficient proof to rebut the presumption that while the act of its employee occurred during the time of his employment, that act did not fall within the course and scope of his employment. Therefore, the District cannot be held liable under the MTCA for the misconduct of Officer James which occurred outside the course and scope of his employment. ¶ 18. Because we find that Officer James was not acting within the course and scope of his employment with the result that the District is not liable under the MTCA, we need not address whether Officer James's conduct constituted a criminal offense.