CASE 22.1 STATE COURT CASE Series of Forgeries of Checks Spacemakers of America, Inc. v. SunTrust Bank 271 Ga.App. 335, 609 S.E.2d 683, Web 2005 Ga. App. Lexis 43 (2005) Court of Appeals of Georgia "In this case, the undisputed evidence showed that vendors, and a Spacemakers employee reminded Rose that Spacemakers hired as a bookkeeper a twice-convicted Triplett's husband owned Triple M. Rose immediately embezzler who was on probation, then delegated the called the police, and Triplett was arrested. entire responsibility of reviewing and reconciling its Spacemakers sent a letter to Sun Trust Bank, demanding bank statements to her while failing to provide any over- that the bank credit $523,106 to its account for the forged sight on these essential tasks." checks. The bank refused, contending that Spacemakers's -Ellington, Judge failure to provide the bank with timely notice of the forgeries barred Spacemakers's claim. Spacemakers sued Sun Trust for negligence and unauthorized payment of Facts forged items. The trial court granted Sun Trust's motion Spacemakers of America, Inc., hired Jenny Triplett as its for summary judgment. Spacemakers appealed. bookkeeper. Spacemakers did not inquire about any prior criminal record or conduct a criminal background check Issue of Triplett. If it had taken those steps, it would have dis- Did Spacemakers's failure to uncover the forgeries and covered that Triplett was on probation for 13 counts of failure to provide Sun Trust with timely notice of the forg- forgery and had been convicted of theft by deception. All eries bar its claim against Sun Trust? convictions were the result of Triplett forging checks of previous employers. Language of the Court Spacemakers delegated to Triplett sole responsibility In this case, the undisputed evidence showed that for maintaining the company's checkbook, reconciling the Spacemakers hired as a bookkeeper a twice-convicted checkbook with monthly bank statements, and prepar- embezzler who was on probation, then delegated the ing financial reports. Triplett also handled the company's entire responsibility of reviewing and reconciling its bank accounts payable and regularly presented checks to Dennis statements to her while failing to provide any oversight Rose, the president of Spacemakers, so he could sign them. on these essential tasks. There is every reason to believe Just weeks after starting her job at Spacemakers, Triplett that, if Spacemakers had simply reviewed its bank state- forged Rose's signature on a check for $3,000 made pay- ments, it would have discovered the forgeries. Accordingly, able to her husband's company, Triple M Entertainment we find that Spacemakers is precluded as a matter of law Group, which was not a vendor for Spacemakers. By the from asserting claims based upon the forgeries in this case. end of the first full month of employment, Triplett had forged five more checks totaling $22,320, all payable to Decision Triple M. Over the next nine months, Triplett forged The court of appeals held that Spacemakers was barred 59 more checks totaling approximately $475,000. All from recovering the value of the forged checks from checks were drawn against Spacemakers's bank account at Sun Trust. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's Sun Trust Bank. No one except Triplett reviewed the com- grant of summary judgment to Sun Trust. pany's bank statements. Subsequently, a Sun Trust employee visually inspected Ethics Questions a $30,670 check. She became suspicious of the signature and called Rose. The Sun Trust employee faxed a copy of Did Triplett act ethically in this case? Did Spacemakers the check to Rose, which was made payable to Triple M. act ethically when it sued Sun Trust to try to recover its Rose knew that Triple M was not one of the company's losses caused by the forgeries?CRITICAL LEGAL THINKING CASE Scope of Employment Critical Thinking Massey v. Starbucks Corporation "If the Starbucks employees had assaulted Massey in back, and a scuffle ensued. A pedestrian passerby finally order to remove her from the premises so that they could separated the parties. Massey's face was bleeding when close the store on time, they could have been acting she got up. within the scope of employment." The Starbucks employees who were involved in the -Scheindlin, Judge altercation were terminated by Starbucks. Massey sued Starbucks for damages for the injuries she suffered. Kenya Massey and Raymond Rodriquez entered a Starbucks moved for summary judgment, alleging that Starbucks coffee shop in Manhattan, New York City. the employees were not acting within the scope of their The couple ordered two beverages from a Starbucks employment when they assaulted Massey. employee and paid for the drinks. When Massey and The U.S. district court held that Starbucks was not Rodriquez moved toward the seating area while waiting liable because its employees were not acting within the for their drinks to be prepared, Karen Morales, the shift scope of their employment when they injured plaintiff supervisor at the store, told Massey and Rodriquez that Massey. The court stated, "If the Starbucks employees had they could not sit down because the store was closing. assaulted Massey in order to remove her from the premises Massey informed Morales that when she received her so that they could close the store on time, they could have drinks, she and Rodriquez intended to sit and enjoy them been acting within the scope of employment." The court at Starbucks. found, however, that the assault happened after the store Morales instructed a Starbucks employee to cancel was closed. Massey v. Starbucks Corporation, Web 2004 Massey's beverage order and refund Massey's money. U.S. Dist. Lexis 12993 (United States District Court for Massey asked to speak with a manager. Morales identi- the Southern District of New York). fied herself as the manager and told Massey to "get a life." At that point, Starbucks employee Melissa Polanco told Massey, "I get off at ten o'clock, and we can go out- Critical Legal Thinking Questions side." Massey and Rodriquez exited and walked away Why are employers held liable for the torts committed from the store while Massey and the employees yelled by employees when they are acting within the scope of profanities at each other. As Massey continued to walk their employment? Is it difficult to determine when an away, Polanco ran after and caught her and punched employee is acting within the scope of their employment Massey in the face. Morales then jumped on Massey's and when they are not