Court Opinion

ID: 9513302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:33:58.569653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:48.758539
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
[¶ 57] Vince Gillette was the only social worker for Kidder County. Twila Nelson alleges Gillette engaged in sexual activities with her while she was a minor. Gillette is now the Director of Social Services for Sioux County. No criminal charges have ever been filed against Gillette. Gillette has consistently denied Nelson’s allegations. Although he found problems with the testimony of both Gillette and Nelson, a hearing officer for the Board of Social Worker Examiners decided it more likely Nelson was telling the truth than Gillette, although the hearing officer said some events claimed by Nelson clearly did not occur and probably had been suggested by her mother.
[¶ 58] Without admitting misconduct, Gillette has been dropped from the case in exchange for a “confession of judgment,” which under the terms of the stipulation Gillette cannot be required to personally pay.
[¶ 59] Gillette, who lives in Bismarck with his wife and family, acknowledges he gave Nelson occasional rides to Bismarck to visit her mother. He denies any impropriety. There have never been any other allegations of misconduct by Gillette. The majority upholds dismissal of all but the negligent supervision claim against the county.
[¶ 60] After resolving the disputed eviden-tiary facts in favor of Nelson, what did Gillette’s supervisor know and when did she know it?
[¶ 61] Prior to the last act of alleged abuse, the supervisor knew Nelson was a moderately retarded, promiscuous female teenager, and she knew Gillette is a male and he occasionally gave Nelson rides to Bismarck so Nelson could visit her mother. That’s it. From that the majority says the supervisor should have been on notice and should have taken steps to prevent Gillette’s alleged sexual exploitation of Nelson.
[¶ 62] The majority waxes on the “well-known psychological phenomenon” of “transference.” But from the eases the majority cites, it appears to be a “well-known phenomenon” only as it relates to psychotherapists, and it is undisputed Gillette was not a psychotherapist.
[¶ 63] Although only one of its cited eases appears to actually support the proposition, the majority contends at ¶ 45: “A number of cases have concluded that sexual contact between a counselor and a patient is foreseeable when the professional does not properly handle the transference phenomenon.” The cases do support the proposition “mishandling of transference [is] malpractice or gross negligence.” Simmons v. United States, 805 F.2d 1363, 1365 (9th Cir.1986) (citing cases). None of the cases cited by the majority hold malpractice or gross negligence are inherently foreseeable.
*344[If 64] Only one “transference case” cited by the majority, Simmons, relates to a counselor who was a social worker. Perhaps the majority does not discuss the case in detail because the analysis undercuts its negligent supervision argument.
“Jerrie Simmons, a member of the Che-halis Tribe, sought mental health consultation from the Indian Health Service and was counseled by Ted Kammers, a social worker.
⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜
“In October 1978 Mr. Kammers initiated romantic contact with Ms. Simmons during a counseling session, encouraging her to act on her professed feelings of attraction to him. In January 1979 he had sexual intercourse with her during an out-of-town trip and this romantic and sexual relationship continued during the course of Ms. Simmons’ treatment.
* # ⅜ ■ ⅜ * ⅜
“Mr. Kammers’ supervisor, Victor Sansal-one, was informed of the situation between the counselor and Ms. Simmons in January 1980. Since the counseling relationship continued until July 1981, the district court found Mr. Sansalone was negligent in fading to do anything to prevent further harm to Ms. Simmons. Under the Fourth Circuit decision in Andrews [v. United States, 732 F.2d 366 (4th Cir.1984) ] Government liability is predicated on such supervisory negligence. 732 F.2d at 371. In Andrews the supervising physician knew of certain ‘sexual improprieties’ before intercourse occurred. The Government here argues the Andrews defendant’s negligence lay in not preventing harm which had not yet occurred, thus attempting to distinguish the instant case, wherein intercourse had occurred before Mr. Sansalone was aware of the situation. This distinction is unhelpful in that the district court found Ms. Simmons to have suffered psychological damage from the whole course of Mr. Kammers’ conduct, at least a ‘portion of which should have been averted by Mr. Sansalone’s intervention.”
Simmons at 1364, 1371 (emphasis added). Unlike in Simmons, the supervisor in this case learned of the situation only after all the alleged sexual abuse occurred.
[¶ 65] The evidentiary facts most favorable to Nelson do not defeat summary judgment on the negligent supervision claim. This Court explained in D.E.M. v. Allickson, 555 N.W.2d 596, 603 (N.D.1996):
“In [P.L. u] Aubert [, 545 N.W.2d 666 (Minn.1996) ], the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a school district could not be held liable for negligent supervision of a teacher who engaged in sexual contact with a student when it could not have anticipated the behavior or otherwise discovered it through the exercise of reasonable care.”
[¶ 66] This Court then explained foreseeability:
“In addition, even if Aubert had some bearing upon this case it is clearly distinguishable. The underlying basis for the court’s holding in Aubert was that the school district had absolutely no indication that misconduct was occurring between the teacher and student, and therefore the injury was wholly unforeseeable. The court rejected the plaintiff’s theory that sexual contact between teachers and students was a well-known hazard and impliedly foreseeable.
“In this case, the Church was aware of possible misconduct. Rumors had spread among Church members about possible sexual activity between Pastor Allickson and Donna Martin, and a Church employee confronted them about it. When they denied their relationship, no further action or investigation occurred. This is not a case where the plaintiffs rely upon implied foreseeability of sexual misconduct between pastors and parishioners. Rather, the Martins claim the Church was on notice of possible misconduct and did not adequately investigate and respond.”
D.E.M. at 603 n. 4 (emphasis added). Here, the County was not on notice. As in Aubert and D.E.M., sexual contact between social workers and clients is not “a well-known hazard and impliedly foreseeable” any more than it is between teachers and students, and pastors and parishioners; and the County “had absolutely no indication that misconduct *345was occurring” between Gillette and Nelson, and therefore any “injury was wholly unforeseeable.”
[¶ 67] I would affirm the judgment of the district court.
[¶ 68] Dale Y. Sandstrom.