1-2 discussion: agency previous next read case 34-2, iglesia cristiana la casa del senor, inc. v. l. m., on page 778. explain the concepts of agency and respondeat superior. assume that l. m.’s account of the incident is true. examine the exception to the "scope of employment" criteria mentioned by the judge. how could the plaintiff make an argument that pacheco’s conduct was within the scope of his employment? you may have heard of similar cases in the news, where the employer of the offending party was held liable, such as cases involving a teacher and a student. on what basis should employers be held liable for the acts of their employees in these types of cases?

In the understanding of this court case, where the plaintiff (L.M.) filed a lawsuit against Pacheco on sexual abuse, the court ruled that the perpetration of the abhorrent act committed did not have to do with Pacheco´s ´´scope of employment´´ as the act happened outside the boundaries of the church and not within his working hours. However, if the plaintiff were to argue that in fact this conduct happened within the scope of employment, she would have to explain and convince that Pacheco was indeed responsible as it is a Pastor's duty and responsibility to guide and counsel at all hours, and not just limited to his church´s hours. A pastor is a figure of responsibility as a visible head for a community, not to mention that in some churches, a pastor is also a legal representative.  

Employers should be held liable for the acts of their employees whenever there is a failure to supervise employees or some kind of misdemeanor is perpetrated within the employer´s work facilities or influential premises. These points of view however, are not stated by a lawyer/judicially, these are my personal observations after having researched on the case.