Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School District
Citation and Court
14 Cal. 4th 1066 (1997), Supreme Court of California
Facts
Several school districts gave positive letters of recommendation for Robert Gadams, a former vice principal, without disclosing that he had been the subject of complaints of sexual misconduct with students. Relying on these letters, a new school hired Gadams, who subsequently molested Randi W., a thirteen-year-old student. Randi W. sued the former school districts for negligent misrepresentation.
Issue
Whether school districts that provided misleadingly positive letters of recommendation for an employee with a known history of sexual misconduct owed a duty of care to foreseeable third-party victims.
Holding
The court held that the school districts owed a duty of care to foreseeable victims of Gadams because their letters of recommendation, by omitting material information, created a false impression of his fitness and thus exposed third parties to an unreasonable risk of harm.
Rule / Doctrine
A party who provides a letter of recommendation or reference owes a duty of care to foreseeable third parties who may be harmed by misleading or incomplete information in the letter. Where the writer knows of facts making the subject unfit for the position and omits that information in a way that creates a false impression, the writer may be liable for resulting harm to foreseeable victims.
Significance
Randi W. is frequently taught alongside negligent misrepresentation and the duty to disclose. It raises important questions about the scope of affirmative duties, the tension between the duty to speak and the privilege against defamation, and the responsibility of institutions to warn third parties of known dangers posed by individuals they recommend.