Sampson v. HB Boys

548 P.3d 538

2024 UT App 56

Aaron SAMPSON, Appellant,

v.HB BOYS, LC, Appellee.

No. 20221003-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed April 18, 2024

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable Robert P. Faust, No. 210900310

Gregory W. Stevens, Salt Lake City, Attorney for Appellant

Robert L. Janicki, Michael L. Ford, Salt Lake City, and Thomas M. Alldridge, Attorneys for Appellee

Judge David N. Mortensen authored this Opinion, in which Judges Ryan D. Tenney and John D. Luthy concurred.

Opinion

MORTENSEN, Judge:

¶1 A couple of interactions soured the relationship between the shift supervisor at a Burger King and a customer, Aaron Sampson, who in addition to requesting a new burger or a refund, filmed his interactions with the shift supervisor (Shift Supervisor). Running out of patience during a second interaction, the soon-to-be-fired Shift Supervisor assailed Sampson with racist slights and solicited a nearby acquaintance to assault him. Sampson subsequently sued the franchise owner, HB Boys, LC (HBB), under the Utah Civil Rights Act (UCRA)—specifically under the private right of action provision. HBB moved for summary judgment, claiming the common law doctrines of respondeat superior and agency did not apply in these circumstances and therefore it could not be held liable under the UCRA. The district court agreed and granted the motion. Sampson appeals, and we reverse.

BACKGROUND¹

¶2 In February 2019, Sampson was assaulted at a Burger King owned by HBB. To understand this incident, we must first go back to another incident that took place about two weeks prior when Sampson received an undercooked cheeseburger at the same Burger King. After Sampson took several bites of his burger, he realized that it was not cooked through and approached the front counter to ask for a new one or a refund. The employee left the front counter to take the issue to Shift Supervisor at the back of the restaurant. Sampson overheard Shift Supervisor in a raised voice respond, "He can’t have another burger," and, "If he wants a burger, I’ll cook him a burger." Concerned there would be a problem, Sampson pulled out his phone to record as Shift Supervisor made her way to the counter. Shift Supervisor asked him what he wanted, and Sampson said that he would like a refund. Shift Supervisor told him, "You can’t be eating the stuff and then expect to get a refund." Sampson explained that he didn’t eat the burger because the meat was red and once again stated that he would like a refund. Shift Supervisor again told him he could not have one, so Sampson asked for her name, which she refused to give him. Sampson then asked for a phone number to file a complaint, and Shift Supervisor pushed a receipt with the number into his chest, while also trying to grab his phone. Shift Supervisor threatened to call the police, at which point Sampson left the restaurant.

¶3 Sampson considered filing a complaint with both the police and HBB, but before he could do so, a second incident occurred.

¶4 Two weeks after the first encounter at Burger King, Sampson and his cousin (Cousin) returned to the same restaurant to get food before the Super Bowl. Sampson waited in the car while Cousin ran in to grab the food. After waiting about ten minutes for Cousin to return, Sampson went into the restaurant to see what was taking so long.

¶5 When Cousin had attempted to order, Shift Supervisor had confronted him about filming her "again." Cousin explained that she must have him confused with someone else. As their conversation went on, a large man came to the counter and confronted Cousin in a "threatening manner." Cousin continued to tell the pair that they had the wrong person and he just wanted to order his food. Shift Supervisor eventually took his order, and Cousin stepped to the side to wait for what seemed to him like an intentionally longer than usual amount of time. It was at this point that Sampson entered the restaurant.

¶6 Shift Supervisor recognized Sampson and asked if he was there to record her again. Sampson said he didn’t know what she was talking about. Shift Supervisor responded by directing a racial epithet at Sampson and calling him a "fool" before returning to the drive-through area. Sampson again began recording the incident. He asked Shift Supervisor, "Why are you calling me out a name like that? Why are you calling me out a name in front of these customers?" Shift Supervisor called him a fool again, and Sampson again asked why she was calling him names. Shift Supervisor then turned to him and said, "Don’t have my brother beat you up." Sampson dismissed the comment and began to leave with Cousin. As they made their way to the exit, the same large man from before, a friend of Shift Supervisor and the "brother" she had referred to (Friend), began exchanging words with Sampson. Friend told Sampson to get his "black ass out of [t]here," to which Sampson responded "fuck you" as he continued leaving the restaurant. Shift Supervisor then told Friend more than once to "take care of him." Following Shift Supervisor’s request, Friend assaulted Sampson inside the restaurant and continued to beat him outside in the parking lot. Sampson called the police, who cited Friend for assault.

¶7 The day after the assault, Sampson called HBB’s district manager, informing him of the incident. The district manager conducted a brief investigation before terminating Shift Supervisor two days later.

¶8 At the time of both incidents, Shift Supervisor was the shift supervisor and neither the manager nor the assistant manager was present. In the HBB policy manual, the role of a shift supervisor is as follows:

The Shift Supervisor (SS) supports the Restaurant Manager in ensuring delivery on the Guest Experience through managing the daily operations of a shift in a single restaurant. The SS helps manage financial controls, operations, people devel-opment, customer service and compliance during shift for desired restaurant outcomes (i.e. increased sales, profitability and employee retention). Within the scope of the Shift Supervisor role, the SS has accountability for restaurant operations in the absence of the Assistant Manager and Restaurant Manager.

¶9 Prior to starting her employment, Shift Supervisor received training on HBB’s policies and signed an acknowledgment that she both understood and would abide by them. The policies included the following language:

4.1.1 It is the Company’s policy to respect the rights of all individuals regardless of the individual’s race, color, sex, age, religion, national origin or disability. The Company expects its employees to respect the dignity and equality of all people.

….

4.2.1 … The Company is also committed to providing its guests with an enjoyable setting that is free from offensive, abusive or unwelcome conduct that might interfere with their dining experience. Accordingly, employees are prohibited from engaging in conduct which creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment, including … racial harassment[ ] or other types of harassment.

….

4.2.3 Racial harassment involves the use of derogatory, unwelcome or offensive raeially-oriented jokes, comments or conduct

….

Following her promotion to shift supervisor, Shift Supervisor signed an acknowledgment that she had participated in a training reviewing the policies.

¶10 In January 2021, Sampson filed this lawsuit, alleging that HBB was liable for Shift Supervisor’s behavior under the UCRA. See Utah Code §§ 13-7-1 to -4. Sampson also alleged that HBB was vicariously liable for Shift Supervisor’s behavior under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior.² HBB filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Sampson could prove neither that HBB discriminated against him nor that HBB was vicariously liable for Shift Supervisor’s acts. The district court granted HBB’s motion for summary judgment.

¶11 The court based its dismissal of Sampson’s claim of discrimination under the UCRA on a determination that there was no genuine issue of material fact that (1) HBB had non-discrimination policies in place and did not tolerate the violation of those policies; (2) Shift Supervisor completed all required training and signed the acknowledgment that she understood and would abide by those policies; (3) Sampson pointed to no actual authority that HBB gave to Shift Supervisor to act in the manner that she did; and (4) there could be no implied authority where the alleged conduct was "explicitly prohibited." Thus, the district court determined that common law principles applied to the UCRA and concluded that Sampson’s claim failed under general agency principles.

¶12 The court also dismissed Sampson’s claim that HBB was vicariously liable for Shift Supervisor’s actions as a matter of law because it determined that "no reasonable jury could conclude that [Shift Supervisor’s] authority to control the restaurant involved the authority to call a guest racially derogatory names and then have a third-party assault that guest." The court concluded, "This conduct is clearly not of the general kind she was employed to perform and cannot be viewed as motivated at all to serve [HBB]’s interests."

¶13 Sampson now appeals.

ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶14 Sampson argues that the district court erred in granting HBB’s summary Judgment motion for two reasons. First, Sampson contends that the district court incorrectly interpreted the UCRA to apply common law agency principles in finding that Shift Supervisor had no implied authority to act. as she did on behalf of HBB—and that if a common law principle is required by the UCRA, the appropriate doctrine is respondeat superior.

Second, Sampson argues that the court erred in finding that HBB was not vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior as Shift Supervisor’s conduct was outside the scope of her employment. "We review the district court’s decision to grant or deny summary judgment for correctness, viewing the facts and all...