Sears Possibly Liable for Peeping Tom
Sears hired Alejandro Gamiz as a maintenance worker. In this capacity, Gamiz had access to fitting rooms and bathrooms during store hours and prior to the store's opening. Over the course of three years, Alejandro Gamiz recorded and uploaded videos of women and girls in a Sears fitting room and bathroom. More than 1,000 women and girls were filmed. Gamiz installed motion activated cameras inside of holes the size of pencil tips that make it difficult to detect.
Sear fired Gamiz and he was arrested after his equipment was found. Gamiz was sentenced to one year in jail and three years of probation.
A Los Angeles judge found that Sears can be held liable for negligence. The judge decided that the law states that Sears has a duty of care to protect customers and employees. The plaintiffs claim Sears was negligent in the hiring, supervising, and retaining of Gamiz. A former employee has also claimed that Sears retaliated against her when she spoke to the media and filed a complaint.
Sears believed that it did not have any liability for Gamiz's conduct because it was "unforeseeable." Sears has said that Gamiz's background check came back clear when it first hired him.
Comments from Allen:
Employers are generally liable for the conduct of their employees when they are acting "within the course and scope of their employment." While Gamiz certainly was not hired to spy on customers, he was on the job and working at Sears when this happened. He had unrestricted access to women's fitting rooms and bathrooms.
If 1,000 women were filmed, each one has a separate suit against Gamiz and his employer. Gamiz is what we call a "turnip," a defendant from whom you cannot squeeze blood (or damages). Sears is the target because it can actually afford to pay damages, and high damages, to 1,000 victims.
Sears' attorneys will certainly try every means to avoid responsibility for these actions. I predict Sears will lose. While it may be true Gamiz' background check came up clean, the judge in the case is allowing the case to go to trial because of Gamiz' unrestricted access to places in which women had an expectation their privacy would be protected by Sears.
A jury will ultimately determine whether Sears properly executed its duty of care to protect its customers and employees. Sears problem is that this did not just happen once or twice. It happened over a very long period of time, again and again and again. The fact that Sears never caught it during all this time will probably be overwhelming evidence that Sears was not reasonable in supervising this employee.
Normally, in a lawsuit of this size, the court will try liability first, and then hold a series of trials on damages for each one of the victims. At this time, there are 25 victims listed in the suit. Each will be entitled to a separate trial on damages.
Once liability is established in this suit, additional women may file suit; they will not have to prove liability, they will only need to establish they were among the victims of Mr. Gamiz, and they will be entitled to sue Sears for all of their damages.
Sources for more information:
http://searspeepingtom.com/images/Legal_Complaint.pdf
http://www.law360.com/articles/650216/disappointed-judge-denies-sanctions-in-sears-peeping-case
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/sears-peeping-tom-lawsuit/sears-peeping-tom-20763.html#.VZ6kTPlViko
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/lawsuit-filed-against-sears-on-behalf-of-peeping-tom-victims/
http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/2015/07/voyeurism/
Sear fired Gamiz and he was arrested after his equipment was found. Gamiz was sentenced to one year in jail and three years of probation.
A Los Angeles judge found that Sears can be held liable for negligence. The judge decided that the law states that Sears has a duty of care to protect customers and employees. The plaintiffs claim Sears was negligent in the hiring, supervising, and retaining of Gamiz. A former employee has also claimed that Sears retaliated against her when she spoke to the media and filed a complaint.
Sears believed that it did not have any liability for Gamiz's conduct because it was "unforeseeable." Sears has said that Gamiz's background check came back clear when it first hired him.
Comments from Allen:
Employers are generally liable for the conduct of their employees when they are acting "within the course and scope of their employment." While Gamiz certainly was not hired to spy on customers, he was on the job and working at Sears when this happened. He had unrestricted access to women's fitting rooms and bathrooms.
If 1,000 women were filmed, each one has a separate suit against Gamiz and his employer. Gamiz is what we call a "turnip," a defendant from whom you cannot squeeze blood (or damages). Sears is the target because it can actually afford to pay damages, and high damages, to 1,000 victims.
Sears' attorneys will certainly try every means to avoid responsibility for these actions. I predict Sears will lose. While it may be true Gamiz' background check came up clean, the judge in the case is allowing the case to go to trial because of Gamiz' unrestricted access to places in which women had an expectation their privacy would be protected by Sears.
A jury will ultimately determine whether Sears properly executed its duty of care to protect its customers and employees. Sears problem is that this did not just happen once or twice. It happened over a very long period of time, again and again and again. The fact that Sears never caught it during all this time will probably be overwhelming evidence that Sears was not reasonable in supervising this employee.
Normally, in a lawsuit of this size, the court will try liability first, and then hold a series of trials on damages for each one of the victims. At this time, there are 25 victims listed in the suit. Each will be entitled to a separate trial on damages.
Once liability is established in this suit, additional women may file suit; they will not have to prove liability, they will only need to establish they were among the victims of Mr. Gamiz, and they will be entitled to sue Sears for all of their damages.
***********************************************************************************************************************
Allen Browning is an attorney in Idaho Falls, Idaho who handles personal injury and criminal defense. He has over 30 years of experience and handled thousands of cases. Allen work with cases from all over Idaho. Call (208) 542-2700 to set up a free consultation if you are facing legal trouble or you have been involved in an accident.
Also, check out browninglaw.net for more information about Allen and Browning Law.
Allen Browning can help with all personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents, serious and disabling accidents, and wrongful death claims.
Allen Browning is an Idaho Falls attorney who can also help with drunk driving (DUI) , Felony, Misdemeanor, Domestic Violence, Drug Crimes, Theft, Juvenile Crimes, Violent Crimes, and Probation/Parole Violations. He is one of the most experienced and successful criminal defense attorneys in Idaho.
http://searspeepingtom.com/images/Legal_Complaint.pdf
http://www.law360.com/articles/650216/disappointed-judge-denies-sanctions-in-sears-peeping-case
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/sears-peeping-tom-lawsuit/sears-peeping-tom-20763.html#.VZ6kTPlViko
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/lawsuit-filed-against-sears-on-behalf-of-peeping-tom-victims/
http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/2015/07/voyeurism/
Comments
Post a Comment