The assault allegation was never in dispute - but whose problem was it?
A New York appeals court has ruled a physical therapy practice cannot be held liable for a staffer’s alleged sexual assault.
The worker sued Hands of Hope P.T., P.C. and other defendants in 2022 under the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of the City of New York, section 8-107), alleging a physical therapist assistant sexually assaulted her during a treatment appointment. She sought to hold the practice responsible for its employee’s alleged conduct.
The practice moved for summary judgment in May 2024. Its argument was simple: whatever happened in that treatment room was not part of the job. The trial court agreed and dismissed the NYCHRL claim against Hands of Hope. The worker appealed.
She lost again.
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed on October 14, 2026, applying the doctrine of respondeat superior - the rule that makes employers vicariously liable for their employees’ actions, but only when those actions happen in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment. An employer can be on the hook even for intentional acts, provided the conduct is “generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment.”
But there is a hard line. When an employee acts for “wholly personal reasons” that have nothing to do with the job, the employer is not liable. The court cited its own precedent in Montalvo v Episcopal Health Services, Inc., where it held that a sexual assault “is not in furtherance of an employer’s business and is a clear departure from the scope of employment, having been committed for wholly personal motives.”
Hands of Hope cleared that bar. The practice demonstrated the alleged conduct was a departure from the physical therapist assistant’s duties - not an extension of them. The worker, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact that might have kept the claim alive.
The panel affirmed with costs. All four justices concurred.
For HR teams, the decision draws a practical line around vicarious liability: not every act of employee misconduct at the workplace becomes the employer’s legal problem. Under New York law, conduct driven by wholly personal motives falls outside the scope of employment - and the employer does not answer for it through respondeat superior alone. The distinction matters most in industries where employees work closely with clients or patients, and the line between professional duty and personal conduct can blur.
