Friedman and Ranzenhofer, PC Law Blog, Landlord Tenant

Landlord Not Liable For Maintenance Worker Raping Tenant

Landlord Not Liable For Maintenance Worker Raping TenantA tenant at an apartment complex operated by a public housing authority, alleged that she was raped by a maintenance worker employed by the complex. She claims that the worker initially contacted her in the course of his employment to respond to a maintenance request but subsequently began to harass her through calls, texts, and inappropriate conduct. The alleged sexual assault occurred when the worker entered her unlocked apartment without using his employer-issued master key, at a time when he was not scheduled to perform work in her unit.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of the landlord and the maintenance worker dismissing the plaintiff’s federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) claims. The District Court found that the landlord was not directly liable because it had no notice of the employee’s conduct prior to the alleged assault and could not have taken action before the worker had already quit. The court also concluded that there was no vicarious liability because the worker was not acting within the scope of his employment and the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the worker’s employment and the assault under the aided-by-agency exception. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the worker dismissing2026, FHA claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Trujillo v. Amity Plaza affirmed on July 26, 2026 holding that while the FHA incorporates common law agency principles, the aided-by-agency exception is narrowly construed and applies only when an employee exercises significant authority over the victim or uses a special privilege of employment to commit the tort.

The aided-by-agency exception applies in two situations. First, the exception can apply when an employee exercises  significant authority over a tort victim by  virtue  of  his  employment.  Second,  the  exception  can  apply  when  an  employee  gains  a  special  privilege  or  access  that  is  not  available  to  the  general public. In both circumstances, the employee must use the authority or privilege to commit the tort. Otherwise, the employment did not “aid” the commission of the tort.

There was no evidence the worker used such authority or privilege—he did not use his master key or any special access. The court further affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to the worker and the district court’s refusal to retain supplemental jurisdiction.

For further information, read:

Contact New York premises liability attorneys Friedman & Ranzenhofer, PC at (716) 543-3764 for a free case evaluation if you or a family member is injured due to your landlord’s negligence.

Landlord Not Liable For Maintenance Worker Raping Tenant

A tenant at an apartment complex operated by a public housing authority, alleged that she was raped by a maintenance worker employed by the complex. She claims that the worker initially contacted her in the course of his employment to respond to a maintenance request but subsequently began to harass her through calls, texts, and inappropriate conduct. The alleged sexual assault occurred when the worker entered her unlocked apartment without using his employer-issued master key, at a time when he was not scheduled to perform work in her unit.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of the landlord and the maintenance worker dismissing the plaintiff’s federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) claims. The District Court found that the landlord was not directly liable because it had no notice of the employee’s conduct prior to the alleged assault and could not have taken action before the worker had already quit. The court also concluded that there was no vicarious liability because the worker was not acting within the scope of his employment and the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the worker’s employment and the assault under the aided-by-agency exception. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the worker dismissing2026, FHA claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Trujillo v. Amity Plaza affirmed on July 26, 2026 holding that while the FHA incorporates common law agency principles, the aided-by-agency exception is narrowly construed and applies only when an employee exercises significant authority over the victim or uses a special privilege of employment to commit the tort.

The aided-by-agency exception applies in two situations. First, the exception can apply when an employee exercises  significant authority over a tort victim by  virtue  of  his  employment.  Second,  the  exception  can  apply  when  an  employee  gains  a  special  privilege  or  access  that  is  not  available  to  the  general public. In both circumstances, the employee must use the authority or privilege to commit the tort. Otherwise, the employment did not “aid” the commission of the tort.

There was no evidence the worker used such authority or privilege—he did not use his master key or any special access. The court further affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to the worker and the district court’s refusal to retain supplemental jurisdiction.

For further information, read:

Contact New York premises liability attorneys Friedman & Ranzenhofer, PC at (716) 543-3764 for a free case evaluation if you or a family member is injured due to your landlord’s negligence.

Subscribe to Our Blog