A House subcommittee advanced legislation that would allow juries to decide whether employers or principals can be held civilly liable for intentional sexual assaults by employees or agents. The committee voted 7-1 to report the measure to the full committee.

Sponsor Delegate Delaney and bill counsel framed the bill as a statutory response to a recent Virginia Supreme Court trilogy that, they said, moved core questions of scope of employment out of the jury's hands. "We're creating a door where one has been shut," said a bill proponent, urging the subcommittee to restore a jury's ability to decide course-and-scope questions in cases alleging intentional sexual assaults.

Proponents emphasized the bill is not intended to impose strict liability. Counsel described the measure as a jury instruction or finding rule: if the jury finds certain factual predicates (including a but-for causal relationship and that the assault occurred on employer premises or while the employee was performing assigned duties), the jury may find the act occurred within the course and scope of employment. Counsel repeatedly said plaintiffs would still need to prove causation and damages by the civil preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Opponents included the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, the Virginia Restaurant Lodging and Travel Association, and the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association. Emily Webb of the Virginia Chamber told the panel the bill would "place an undue burden on employers by holding them liable for criminal actions of employees or agents even when such actions may be entirely outside of the employer's knowledge or control." Hospital representatives warned that in practical effect the statutory language could operate like strict liability and that large campus employers would face heightened exposure even when they conduct background checks and other screening.

Defense counsel and business groups raised additional drafting concerns that a provision using the phrase "shall be deemed" could operate like a conclusive finding and asked whether a rebuttable-presumption standard might preserve fact-finder flexibility and due process for employers. Representatives for defense attorneys also asked whether the statute's references to "employer or principal" and to "employee or agent" could sweep in subcontractors or persons not directly employed by an entity.

Supporters said the bill is limited to the intentional tort of sexual assault and would not convert intentional-tort claims into strict liability. Delegates on the panel pressed for further drafting conversations; the sponsor and several committee members said they expected additional negotiation before floor consideration.

The subcommittee voted to report the bill to the full committee by a 7-1 roll call. The clerk recorded the motion to report and the vote tally as 7 yes, 1 no.

Votes at a glance
Bill (author Delaney) — Motion to report: passed by subcommittee 7 yes, 1 no. Outcome: advanced to full committee.

What happens next
The sponsor and opponents signaled a willingness to continue technical drafting discussions; the bill will proceed to the full committee with a subcommittee report.