Illinois court holds employers directly liable for unchecked workplace sexual violence

One of those BHAs was Erick Hampton. According to the complaint, Hampton began following the plaintiff, staring at her, and making sexually explicit comments in February 2024. By March, while escorting her through the facility as part of his duties, he allegedly brought her to an isolated area of the Chestnut Lodge where he knew there were no surveillance cameras and sexually abused her. The plaintiff alleged she fought back, escaped, and reported what happened to Eliana Silva, the director of the lodge where she resided. Silva allegedly told her to keep her distance from Hampton but took no further action.

Then, on May 10, 2024, Hampton was again performing his duties as a BHA when he escorted the plaintiff. He allegedly took her to an isolated room in the Acorn Lounge and sexually assaulted her. She was subsequently hospitalized for suicidal ideation. After discharge, she was allegedly released into Hampton’s custody. According to the complaint, he drove her to his home, held her hostage for approximately one week, and repeatedly assaulted and raped her. She eventually escaped and returned to the facility, where she remained until August 2024.

The complaint also alleged that between April 2020 and April 2024, eight other patients had filed police reports alleging sexual assault at the same facility, and one additional patient reported sexual abuse. The defendants allegedly took no remedial action in response to any of those reports.

The plaintiff sued under Section 11 of the Gender Violence Act, which was added to the statute effective January 1, 2024, and creates a framework for employer liability when gender-related violence is committed by an employee in the workplace. She alleged the defendants failed to implement policies to prevent sexual abuse, failed to train and supervise Hampton, failed to act on her complaint after the first attack, and failed to investigate the prior reports from other patients.

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the statute used language drawn from the common law doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds that an employer is only liable for conduct committed within the scope of employment. Because sexual violence is never considered within the scope of employment under existing case law, the defendants argued they could not be held liable. The Cook County Circuit Court agreed and dismissed the claims with prejudice.