Opinion ID: 2344665
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prohibition on Retaliation

Text: The first element of the respondeat superior test is used to determine whether conduct is within the scope of employment. It requires that the conduct be of the kind she is employed to perform. Porter, 151 N.H. at 40, 849 A.2d 103. The City argues that, because Lafond was told not to retaliate, her conduct could, therefore, not be of the kind [Lafond] is employed to perform for respondeat superior liability purposes. Merely forbidding Lafond to take a certain action does not shelter the City from liability as a matter of law, however. An act, although forbidden, or done in a forbidden manner, may be within the scope of employment. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 230 (1958); McIntyre v. U.S., 447 F.Supp.2d 54, 109-10 n. 93 (D.Mass. 2006) (collecting cases). This can include specifically forbidden acts and forbidden means of accomplishing results. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 230 comment b at 511. A master cannot direct a servant to accomplish a result and anticipate that he will always use the means which he directs or will refrain from acts which it is natural to expect that servants may do. Id. As a matter of law, then, the City's admonitions against retaliation are not sufficient to eliminate its possible liability. Summary judgment was, therefore, properly denied.