No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Trial court's motion to dismiss granted and affirmed. Appellant failed to state a cognizable civil rights claim against a private employer for employee conduct, and employer could not be held vicariously liable for acts outside scope of employment.
Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err when granting appellee's motion to dismiss appellant's complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Appellant purported to assert a civil rights violation arising from allegations of threatening behavior by appellee's employee in a convenience store, but such a claim is not cognizable against a non-state actor for private conduct. Even if appellant's allegations are construed as a claim for an intentional tort such as battery, appellee could not be held vicariously liable for acts of an employee that fall outside the scope of employment.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.