HRM443: Jamie Evans v. Washington, Who is Really Liable?

HRM443: Case Analysis 2 Jamie Evans v. Washington Ctr for Internships and Academic Seminars 587 F. Supp. 2d 148; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94260 (District of COLUMBIA)

The issue is whether an internship placement program can be held liable for battery for placing an intern with a physician who touches her in an inappropriate manner.

Huvelle, United States District Judge. Plaintiff worked as an unpaid intern in the summer of 2007 at a health practice in Washington, D.C. She has now filed suit alleging that one of her supervisors, Steven Kulawy, committed the tort of battery and sexual harassment in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”).

In addition, she has sued the Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars for negligently placing her with Dr. Kulawy without adequately investigating his past.

Plaintiff claims that Dr. Kulawy engaged in inappropriate and offensive behavior during her internship by making advances towards her, commenting on her appearance, massaging her shoulders, and wrapping his arm around her waist.

As a result, plaintiff claims that she “grew increasingly anxious and uncomfortable” and changed her appearance to make herself less attractive.

However, she did not report this behavior to anyone until mid-July 2007, when she talked to a TWC employee who was conducting a site visit. As a result, on the recommendation of TWC, plaintiff stopped her internship at CIBT/PMA. Plaintiff claims that this experience forced her to change her career plans and has caused emotional and physical distress. “To establish liability for the tort of battery in the District of Columbia, a plaintiff must plead and establish that the defendant caused ‘an intentional, unpermitted, harmful or offensive contact with his person or something attached to it.’” Plaintiff’s complaint incorporates all of these elements, as she alleges that “Dr. Kulawy intentionally touched [her] in an offensive manner each time he came up behind her and massaged her shoulders while she was typing or filing and each time he put his arm around her waist.” Defendants argue that the contact was not “unpermitted,” because plaintiff failed to object to Dr. Kulawy’s touching until her last day at work.

However, whether plaintiff consented to Dr. Kulawy’s physical contact is a question of fact. Likewise, defendants’ argument that the contact could not possibly be construed as harmful or offensive is also a factual question. Accordingly, the battery count states a claim upon which relief can be granted. . . . Case Commentary The U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia ruled that the physician and the internship placement center could both be held liable for battery. Case Questions 1. Provide a summary of the main issue of the case. 2. Are you in agreement with this decision? 3. Do you think the internship placement center has a duty to investigate the institutions and their employees with whom interns will be placed? 4. How would the investigation be conducted, and for what specifically would they be looking?