The employer was in the business of transporting developmentally disabled adults and children from their homes and care providers to various day-care centers and schools. Over a three-year period, no fewer than three male drivers filed reports of misbehavior by a male adult customer named Ernest Rocha. In one report, Rocha was alleged to have refused to remain seated and to have brandished a knife. Additionally, three female drivers had filed reports during the same general time frame, all of which alleged that Rocha had exposed himself while on the buses. The plaintiff/

driver was hired in the wake of these half-dozen reports and was required to deal with Rocha, who allegedly touched her, grabbed her purse, demanded money, refused to remain in his seat, and exposed himself to her. These repeated incidents, reported by plaintiff to her dispatcher, culminated in an incident in which Rocha allegedly touched the plaintiff “all over” and shoved his hands under her shirt. She in turn scratched his face and kicked and pushed him.

Based on these facts, should the employer be vicariously liable for Rocha’s sexual harassment and tortious battering of the plaintiff? If the employer should be held vicariously liable, should that liability include intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the plaintiff? See Salazar v. Diversified Paratransit, Inc. [126 Cal. Rptr.2d 475, (Cal. App.

Ct. 2002)].