Amy Coney Barrett overturned a $6.7M jury award to a teenager raped by a prison guard

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/1317499237597261825

I suppose after the controversy surrounding Brett Kavanaugh, the Republicans decided to compromise and nominate someone who merely protected rapists.

[GP270watch]

 Yup.

[Santander]

I suppose after the controversy surrounding Brett Kavanaugh, the Republicans decided to compromise and nominate someone who merely protected rapists.

Protected the county government, not the rapist.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I suppose after the controversy surrounding Brett Kavanaugh, the Republicans decided to compromise and nominate someone who merely protected rapists.

Protected the county government, not the rapist.

Yeah. This seems like a good decision by Barrett. Overzealous jury.

EDIT: I think the teenager deserved some jury award... just a significantly smaller one than $6.7 million

[Pericles]

Seems like this relates to a bunch of legal issues relating to vicarious liability. I'm not knowledgeable on US law to comment here, could someone give a summary of the law for vicarious liability in the US (to the extent that it's relevant to this issue)?

Barrett also later did hold the county liable in a 7-4 decision-

"The jury was furnished with sufficient evidence to hold Polk County liable not on the basis of Christensen's horrific acts but rather the county's own deliberate choice to stand idly by while the female inmates under its care were exposed to an unmistakable risk that they would be sexually assaulted — a choice that was the moving force behind the harm inflicted on J.K.J. and M.J.J.," Judge Michael Scudder wrote in the majority opinion.

Scudder added that "the jury was entitled to conclude that if Polk County had taken action in response to the glaring risk that its female inmates' health and safety were in danger, J.K.J. and M.J.J.'s assaults would have stopped sooner, or never happened at all."

[lfromnj]

The Panel also included a Clinton judge, I seriously don't get the point of trying to act like legal experts and screaming outrage at narrow rulings based on specific circumstances

Pericles the case that happened in Polk County was a different case.

Overall it seems stupid to just act like we know literally all the specifics of this case, especially for people who didn't even fully read the case. If I have time later on I will read the ruling just like I did for the N word case.
The Polk county case showed a different set of circumstances where she ruled differently due to the well the different circumstances.

[Pericles]

The Panel also included a Clinton judge, I seriously don't get the point of trying to act like legal experts and screaming outrage at narrow rulings based on specific circumstances

Pericles the case that happened in Polk County was a different case.

Overall it seems stupid to just act like we know literally all the specifics of this case, especially for people who didn't even fully read the case. If I have time later on I will read the ruling just like I did for the N word case.

Oh, my bad. Well then I don't know about the case, I guess it is probably justifiable, maybe it's the right judgment or maybe it's not.

[brucejoel99]

Amy Coney Barrett reversed a jury award to a pregnant teen raped by a prison guard because raping pregnant teens wasn't part of his job description.

Except that's a really disingenuous way of framing it. She held the county not liable because counties aren't automatically liable for all acts undertaken by their employees. Basically, the county would've had to have either done something (or failed to have done something) to increase the risk of the injury that occurred, or the employee would've had to have caused the injury by undertaking the duties of his job description or something reasonably close to it. The fact that A.) the rapes in this case were (very obviously) not anything that even resembles permissible conduct in terms of the job description; & B.) the individual was almost certainly trained specifically to not sexually assault &/or rape inmates would serve to remove liability from the county.

In the different rape case that Pericles brings up, she ruled to hold the county liable because there, the county actually knew about problems with particular guards & just did nothing.

And I'm obviously no Barrett fan, but as much as I hate to defend her, the legal reasoning here is clear: an employer isn't liable if/when an employee of theirs goes completely out of the scope of their job duty & the employer had no reason to suspect that they would do so.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It doesn't matter she is a seat right to Kavanaugh, to the left of Gorsuch she will be confirmed around election day and if need be Murkowski will vote for her in a lame duck session, she voted for every nominee and her vote wasnt the swing vote on Kavanaugh

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yeah, nothing to see here. Move along.

[lfromnj]

If anyone wants to discuss a more broad sexual assault decision by ACB feel free to discuss the Perdue case.
Although I sympathize with the outcome I don't fully like the stretch of legality here

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-appointment-campus-sex-assault-1534575?amp=1
However fwiw i do remember Ginsburg saying there was a lack of due process in cases like these in a interview.
In thus case ACB actually tried to set large precedent rather than just looking at the specifics.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Amy Coney Barrett reversed a jury award to a pregnant teen raped by a prison guard because raping pregnant teens wasn't part of his job description.

Except that's a really disingenuous way of framing it. She held the county not liable because counties aren't automatically liable for all acts undertaken by their employees. Basically, the county would've had to have either done something (or failed to have done something) to increase the risk of the injury that occurred, or the employee would've had to have caused the injury by undertaking the duties of his job description or something reasonably close to it. The fact that A.) the rapes in this case were (very obviously) not anything that even resembles permissible conduct in terms of the job description; & B.) the individual was almost certainly trained specifically to not sexually assault &/or rape inmates would serve to remove liability from the county.

In the different rape case that Pericles brings up, she ruled to hold the county liable because there, the county actually knew about problems with particular guards & just did nothing.

And I'm obviously no Barrett fan, but as much as I hate to defend her, the legal reasoning here is clear: an employer isn't liable if/when an employee of theirs goes completely out of the scope of their job duty & the employer had no reason to suspect that they would do so.

When the state forcibly deprives people of their liberty, it is damned well responsible for making certain that they are protected from abuse by those the state chooses to place in authority over them. That's not just "an employer".

[DrScholl]

I have no legal degree or legal experience but I do know that this is very sketchy logic and certainly doesn't fit with the supposed strict determination of the law that she professes to rule by. There are thousands of cases where the actions of an employee resulted in their employer being held financially liable.

But Sheriff Clarke is a huge Republican ally and that's probably what she based her decision on.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There's no discussion of the legal issues here. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Seems like this relates to a bunch of legal issues relating to vicarious liability. I'm not knowledgeable on US law to comment here, could someone give a summary of the law for vicarious liability in the US (to the extent that it's relevant to this issue)?

Barrett also later did hold the county liable in a 7-4 decision-

"The jury was furnished with sufficient evidence to hold Polk County liable not on the basis of Christensen's horrific acts but rather the county's own deliberate choice to stand idly by while the female inmates under its care were exposed to an unmistakable risk that they would be sexually assaulted — a choice that was the moving force behind the harm inflicted on J.K.J. and M.J.J.," Judge Michael Scudder wrote in the majority opinion.

Scudder added that "the jury was entitled to conclude that if Polk County had taken action in response to the glaring risk that its female inmates' health and safety were in danger, J.K.J. and M.J.J.'s assaults would have stopped sooner, or never happened at all."

The small details.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

This is so disgustingly out of context lmao

[brucejoel99]

Amy Coney Barrett reversed a jury award to a pregnant teen raped by a prison guard because raping pregnant teens wasn't part of his job description.

Except that's a really disingenuous way of framing it. She held the county not liable because counties aren't automatically liable for all acts undertaken by their employees. Basically, the county would've had to have either done something (or failed to have done something) to increase the risk of the injury that occurred, or the employee would've had to have caused the injury by undertaking the duties of his job description or something reasonably close to it. The fact that A.) the rapes in this case were (very obviously) not anything that even resembles permissible conduct in terms of the job description; & B.) the individual was almost certainly trained specifically to not sexually assault &/or rape inmates would serve to remove liability from the county.

In the different rape case that Pericles brings up, she ruled to hold the county liable because there, the county actually knew about problems with particular guards & just did nothing.

And I'm obviously no Barrett fan, but as much as I hate to defend her, the legal reasoning here is clear: an employer isn't liable if/when an employee of theirs goes completely out of the scope of their job duty & the employer had no reason to suspect that they would do so.

When the state forcibly deprives people of their liberty, it is damned well responsible for making certain that they are protected from abuse by those the state chooses to place in authority over them. That's not just "an employer".

What you say sounds cute & just & right & all, but unfortunately, it's just not how employment law works: within the legal context provided for by the facts of this case, the county was just an employer, & since the county was able to show that they'd put every reasonable measure in place to prevent this sort of abuse from happening (e.g., the guy passed all of their background checks with no red flags, the county trained the officers on preventing sexual assault, etc.), they weren't legally liable.

Again, let the contrast with the 2nd case mentioned elsewhere within this thread be noted, in that Barrett voted in favor of paying out that award to a jail's sexual assault victims because - unlike in this case - there was actually evidence in that case of the county not protecting the inmates.

[Santander]

I have no legal degree or legal experience but I do know that this is very sketchy logic and certainly doesn't fit with the supposed strict determination of the law that she professes to rule by. There are thousands of cases where the actions of an employee resulted in their employer being held financially liable.

But Sheriff Clarke is a huge Republican ally and that's probably what she based her decision on.

That depends on the circumstances involved. If, for example, a postal worker ran over a pedestrian while driving drunk, there's a pretty strong case to be made that the postal service is liable, but if a postal worker shot someone while on the job, and there was no reason to believe, based on background checks, past behavior, etc., that they would commit such an act, it'd be very difficult to say the postal service is liable for that.

[Ferguson97]

I have no legal degree or legal experience but I do know that this is very sketchy logic and certainly doesn't fit with the supposed strict determination of the law that she professes to rule by. There are thousands of cases where the actions of an employee resulted in their employer being held financially liable.

But Sheriff Clarke is a huge Republican ally and that's probably what she based her decision on.

That depends on the circumstances involved. If, for example, a postal worker ran over a pedestrian while driving drunk, there's a pretty strong case to be made that the postal service is liable, but if a postal worker shot someone while on the job, and there was no reason to believe, based on background checks, past behavior, etc., that they would commit such an act, it'd be very difficult to say the postal service is liable for that.

They key difference is that the prison guard is in a position of power over inmates. Postal workers have no power over you. “Don’t rape the inmates” is a pretty implicit part of the job.

[Santander]

I have no legal degree or legal experience but I do know that this is very sketchy logic and certainly doesn't fit with the supposed strict determination of the law that she professes to rule by. There are thousands of cases where the actions of an employee resulted in their employer being held financially liable.

But Sheriff Clarke is a huge Republican ally and that's probably what she based her decision on.

That depends on the circumstances involved. If, for example, a postal worker ran over a pedestrian while driving drunk, there's a pretty strong case to be made that the postal service is liable, but if a postal worker shot someone while on the job, and there was no reason to believe, based on background checks, past behavior, etc., that they would commit such an act, it'd be very difficult to say the postal service is liable for that.

They key difference is that the prison guard is in a position of power over inmates. Postal workers have no power over you. “Don’t rape the inmates” is a pretty implicit part of the job.

"Don't rape" is an explicit part of life. Your job duties consist of things you do, not things you don't do.

[Ferguson97]

I have no legal degree or legal experience but I do know that this is very sketchy logic and certainly doesn't fit with the supposed strict determination of the law that she professes to rule by. There are thousands of cases where the actions of an employee resulted in their employer being held financially liable.

But Sheriff Clarke is a huge Republican ally and that's probably what she based her decision on.

That depends on the circumstances involved. If, for example, a postal worker ran over a pedestrian while driving drunk, there's a pretty strong case to be made that the postal service is liable, but if a postal worker shot someone while on the job, and there was no reason to believe, based on background checks, past behavior, etc., that they would commit such an act, it'd be very difficult to say the postal service is liable for that.

They key difference is that the prison guard is in a position of power over inmates. Postal workers have no power over you. “Don’t rape the inmates” is a pretty implicit part of the job.

"Don't rape" is an explicit part of life. Your job duties consist of things you do, not things you don't do.

You’re skipping over the position of power angle.

If a teacher raped a middle school student on a school trip would you not consider the school liable?

[DrScholl]

I have no legal degree or legal experience but I do know that this is very sketchy logic and certainly doesn't fit with the supposed strict determination of the law that she professes to rule by. There are thousands of cases where the actions of an employee resulted in their employer being held financially liable.

But Sheriff Clarke is a huge Republican ally and that's probably what she based her decision on.

That depends on the circumstances involved. If, for example, a postal worker ran over a pedestrian while driving drunk, there's a pretty strong case to be made that the postal service is liable, but if a postal worker shot someone while on the job, and there was no reason to believe, based on background checks, past behavior, etc., that they would commit such an act, it'd be very difficult to say the postal service is liable for that.

Postal workers and prison guards are completely different. Prison guards have a lot of control over prisoners and have the ability to violate a person's human rights from a position of authority. Don't get it twisted.

[jimrtex]

In the different rape case that Pericles brings up, she ruled to hold the county liable because there, the county actually knew about problems with particular guards & just did nothing.

And I'm obviously no Barrett fan, but as much as I hate to defend her, the legal reasoning here is clear: an employer isn't liable if/when an employee of theirs goes completely out of the scope of their job duty & the employer had no reason to suspect that they would do so.

That is absolutely false. Polk County did not know about the jailer.

The jailer was convicted of rape. The weird part is that the state and defense had negotiated to a plea deal for 8-1/2 years. The judge thought it odd, and was questioning the decision. The jailer said he wanted to see his daughter (who was 9) graduate. The judge realized that was where the 8-1/2 years came from. He sentence the jailer to 30 years.

In a civil suit, the district court awarded $7.5 million from the jailer to the victims and $4 million from the county.

In a 2-1 decision, a 3-judge panel of the 7th Appeals Court overturned the decision of the district court as to the judgment against the county. The dissent was by Trump appointee Michael Scudder.

In a 7-4 decision, the en banc 7th Appeals Court overturned the 3-judge panel. The majority opinion, which Amy Coney Barrett supported, was written by Scudder. It is quite possible that the Trump-appointee had lobbied for the rehearing.

[jimrtex]

I suppose after the controversy surrounding Brett Kavanaugh, the Republicans decided to compromise and nominate someone who merely protected rapists.

Protected the county government, not the rapist.

Yeah. This seems like a good decision by Barrett. Overzealous jury.

EDIT: I think the teenager deserved some jury award... just a significantly smaller one than $6.7 million

The victim sued under a Wisconsin statute that the Wisconsin Supreme Court had previously interpreted. The federal judge ignored that interpretation and let the jury decide whether the jailer was acting in his official capacity.

The more interesting question is why did the DA not prosecute the rape, and instead gave the ex-jailer a 3-day sentence.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As Ds found out it's so hard to demonize a Conservative female no matter how strident in her support for Conservative principles all the Conservative females are gonna vote for her or support her except Collins. Murkowski would vote for ACB if need be in a lame duck session, her father Frank was a real Conservative