Rausman v. Baugh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) did the employee’s acts fall within the direction and control of the employer; (2) did the employee act under the express or implied authority of the employer;, (3) was the employee’s act in furtherance of the employer’s interests; (4) were the employee’s acts in the “discharge of duty” to the employer; (5) was it an act in the execution of employer’s orders or part of the work assigned by the employer; and (6) were the acts “so closely connected” with what the employee was hired to do, and “so fairly and reasonably incidental to it that they may be regarded as methods, even though quite improper ones, of carrying out the objects of the employment”.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Brown · D'Lima v. Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc.

2. “In the context of the case before us, Baugh’s statements were simply not made in the “scope of employment”. In accusing the plaintiff of sexual harassment, Baugh may have been availing herself of company procedures but was not carrying out a duty to the employer. She was free to make the accusation or not; she was under no orders to make the accusation. Moreover, she was under no legal duty to complain ... The grocery clerk who drops the lettuce leaves on which a customer slips was not paid to drop the lettuce, but was indeed paid to put it on the shelf, just as the bus driver who negligently causes an accident was not paid to injure anyone but was indeed paid to drive. In contrast, Baugh, as a social worker, was not hired for the purpose of making allegations of alleged sexual harassment, let alone defamatory ones, and it was certainly not a part of her job description.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 916 F. Supp. 2d 266 - Catania v. Herbst · 251 F. Supp. 2d 1143 - Perks v. Town of Huntington

3. “The theory is that the employer should, as a required cost of doing business ... compensate a party harmed by an employee who was acting not on his or her own behalf, but in the employer's service.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rosenfeld v. Lenich · Smith v. Brown