Miles v. Simmons University

Background

Jennifer Miles was a graduate student in Simmons University’s School of Social Work. During an online course taught by Kyle D. Killian in February 2019, Miles believed that her webcam was off while she used the restroom. She was visible to Killian and the other students. Miles alleged that Killian later recorded the class session from his computer screen using a cell phone and posted the video to Twitter. The video became widely circulated online.

Miles brought Minnesota-law claims against Killian for publication of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She alleged that Simmons was vicariously liable—meaning responsible through its relationship with an employee—for Killian’s alleged torts. Killian filed an answer denying Miles’s allegations. Simmons moved to dismiss the claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a claim for relief.

Court’s analysis

The court applied Minnesota law, which provides that an employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s torts committed within the course and scope of employment. The court held that this issue could be considered at the pleading stage under the federal plausibility standard. Miles therefore had to allege enough facts to make it plausible that Killian acted within the scope of his employment.

The court found that Miles’s repeated conclusory statements that Killian acted within the scope of his employment were not enough. For the alleged intentional misconduct, Minnesota law considers whether the conduct was related to the employee’s duties and occurred within work-related limits of time and place. The court found no factual allegations plausibly showing that Simmons could have foreseen Killian’s alleged conduct. Simmons’s general confidentiality policies did not, by themselves, show that the particular disclosure was foreseeable. The complaint also did not provide meaningful facts about when or where Killian recorded or posted the video, or the circumstances of the posting.

The court also considered the factors applicable to alleged negligent conduct. It found that Killian was not authorized to record and post the video because Miles alleged that he violated Simmons’s policies. The complaint also did not suggest that his conduct furthered Simmons’s interests.

Miles alternatively argued that Killian’s misconduct was aided by his agency relationship with Simmons. The court explained that this theory generally concerns conduct outside the scope of employment and that Minnesota courts had recognized it only in a narrow hostile-work-environment context involving a supervisor’s authority over an employee. The court concluded that Miles could not rely on the theory for these tort claims. It further stated that, even if the theory applied, Miles had not plausibly alleged that Killian’s position enabled the alleged misconduct. According to the complaint, access to the class recording was restricted to participants, so Killian’s position apparently did not give him more access than a student in the course.

Miles stipulated at the hearing to dismissal without prejudice of her negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against Simmons. The court’s order separately dismissed Counts II, IV, VI, and VIII without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted Simmons University’s Motion to Dismiss. The court dismissed Counts II, IV, VI, and VIII of the complaint without prejudice. The court reasoned that discovery on the claims against Killian might provide facts allowing Miles to plead a plausible claim against Simmons later. This order did not dismiss the claims against Killian, which the opinion states would proceed into discovery.