Daza v. LA Community College Dist.
Annotate this CaseAn adult student filed suit against the District and Igor Daza, a guidance counselor employed by the District, alleging Daza sexually assaulted her when she went to his office for counseling services (the main lawsuit). The District refused to defend Daza, so he paid for his own defense and filed a cross-complaint denying the allegations of sexual assault and seeking indemnity and reimbursement for his defense. After the District settled the main lawsuit, it then demurred to Daza’s cross-complaint, arguing that the student’s allegations of sexual assault in the main lawsuit fell outside the scope of Daza’s employment as a matter of law. The California Tort Claims Act, Gov. Code, 810 et seq., requires public employers to defend and indemnify their employees for third party claims arising out of acts within the scope of employment. The court agreed with the trial court that the sexual assault alleged in the main lawsuit fell outside the scope of Daza’s employment as a matter of law. But under a proper interpretation of section 996.4 of the Act, the determination of whether an employee acted within the scope of employment is factual and cannot be limited to the third party’s allegations in the underlying lawsuit when the employee denies those allegations, and the employee’s version of events would demonstrate acts within the scope of employment. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.