Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Employer Vicarious Liability For Voluntary Relationships Between Supervisors And Employees, Carrie E. Fischesser
Employer Vicarious Liability For Voluntary Relationships Between Supervisors And Employees, Carrie E. Fischesser
Seattle University Law Review
It is somewhat radical to suggest that an employer should not be held vicariously liable for an employee's voluntary submission to sexual advances where the alleged harasser is a supervisor, and this approach is a marked departure from existing assumptions regarding sexual harassment. Most decisions and writings on the topic have imposed--under a traditional agency theory-- vicarious liability upon the employer for the sexually harassing conduct of its supervisors.4 Specifically, courts addressing this issue have held that “[t]here is no question that a ‘tangible employment action’ occurs when a supervisor abuses his authority to act on his employer's behalf by …
Tegman V. Accident & Medical Investigations, Inc.: The Re-Modification Of Modified Joint And Several Liability By Judicial Fiat, Victor J. Torres
Tegman V. Accident & Medical Investigations, Inc.: The Re-Modification Of Modified Joint And Several Liability By Judicial Fiat, Victor J. Torres
Seattle University Law Review
This Note explores the Tegman decision in the context of joint and several liability between negligent and intentional actors within Washington State. Part II places Washington tort law into perspective, including the doctrine of joint and several liability, both before and after the Tort Reform Act of 1986. Part III discusses the Tegman decision, methods used in other jurisdictions for dealing with similar situations, and potential solutions to the problems posed by the Tegman holding. Finally, Part IV concludes and urges both the court to reconsider its ruling in Tegman and the legislature to clarify its intent.