Name of Case: Deacon v. Santa Barbara City College
Type of Action: Negligent Hiring and Supervision
Type of Injuries: Rape/Psychological injuries
Court & Case: Santa Barbara County Superior Court, Case No. 1186288
Verdict/Settlement Amount: $1 million settlement
Attorney for Plaintiff: Law Offices of John H. Howard, (805) 644-5894
Security Expert for Plaintiff: Norman D. Bates, Liability Consultants, Inc.
OTHER USEFUL INFORMATION: The Plaintiff was a student at Santa Barbara City College (SBCC) and was raped by a SBCC security officer while he was escorting her in a campus security vehicle. The assailant was from Malawi, Africa, and had been in the United States for six months prior to being hired as a part-time student security officer and had been employed for about 2½ years prior to rape. The Plaintiff put forth claims of negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training of the security officer.
Norman Bates, Plaintiff’s security expert, testified that there are substantial risks attendant to the employment of security officers given the nature of their responsibilities and duties especially in light of the fact that they are placed in a position of trust with both actual and apparent authority. These risks require that thorough pre-employment screening be conducted of such applicants by prospective employers. Mr. Bates opined that SBCC employed Kafatia without conducting any pre-employment screening, in spite of the risks posed by the position to be filled and contrary to recommended national crime prevention and campus protection practices for colleges and universities.
Mr. Bates testified that it was impossible for the college to obtain criminal history information from the country of Malawi and that, given the risks associated with the employment of security officers in a campus setting, it was unreasonable and inappropriate to hire an individual as a security officer whose background could not be verified.
Mr. Bates further testified that there was a history of misconduct and, as such, an increased risk of inappropriate behavior in this case due to the total lack of supervision of the student security officers working the weekend graveyard shift, that the defendants should have reallocated their existing workforce to provide 24-hour supervision coverage.
In light of the fact that the security department utterly failed to supervise student security officers on the weekend graveyard shift, including Kafatia, and the fact that it was extremely difficult if not impossible to perform a background check on Kafatia, he should not have been placed in the position of a security officer. Kafatia could have still been employed at the college in another, lower risk position.