reply to the discussion from your classmate. Your analysis of Acme's potential liability under respondeat superior is also insightful. I agree that Jack's fight with Morris likely falls outside the scope of his employment, especially since the altercation was personal and unrelated to work. Even though the fight occurred before Jack officially clocked out, his termination had already been communicated, which suggests that the employer could argue that Jack was no longer acting within the scope of his employment. Your note about legal variations across jurisdictions is key employment law does differ, so it's always a good idea to consider specific local precedents. Overall, I think your analysis covers the important points, though Jack's claim for wrongful discharge remains speculative without stronger evidence of an illegal motive behind his termination. Would you agree that without further facts, the case for wrongful discharge is likely to be dismissed