Indiana official sued over employer/husband's sexual abuse

The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments on why Pleasant Township Trustee Camelia Clark should be held legally responsible for the sexual battery committed by her employee/husband Donald Clark. Camelia Clark was the trustee and Donald Clark was the deputy trustee.

He pleaded guilty to sexual and simple battery back in 2005 for incidents involving women seeking temporary financial assistance.

The former chairman of the Republican Party in Steuben County and the 4th District received a two-year prison sentence and has since been released.

Debra Barnett, one of the victims, sued in March 2005. According to court records, Donald Clark told her he would give her financial assistance if she worked at the trustee’s office. Then, while reviewing her work in a back room, he closed the door, pushed a chair in front of it and assaulted Barnett.

That suit also claimed that Donald Clark committed similar behavior against clients of the office in 1998 and 1999. At his sentencing, police testified they investigated seven cases involving Donald Clark and female township residents going back to 1979.

The Indiana Court of Appeals overturned the ruling in December 2007, finding that an employer can be liable for the criminal acts of an employee if the employee’s actions were at least for a time authorized.

The Indiana Supreme Court listened to arguments revolving the doctrine of “respondeat superior.” This makes employers liable for the criminal or negligent actions on their employees, regardless of knowledge if they were doing authorized acts.

Christopher Wheeler argued on behalf of the victim that Donald Clark was doing authorized acts during part of the time he was with Barnett – such as instructing her on filing, reviewing her work and seeking her signature on paperwork.

“This case is about whether or not my client should have the opportunity to bring her case to a jury,” he said.

But Robert Keen Jr., attorney for Camelia Clark, said the authorized acts aren’t closely related enough to the battery to allow them to use the narrow exception. For instance, he said a person injured by a bouncer – who is authorized to have physical contact with patrons – could sue the employer if injured.

Justice Frank Sullivan Jr., disturbed by the arguments before him, believed that employers should have to guard against employees taking sexual advantage of their clients.

“What concerns me most about this case is the vulnerability of an individual who is so down and out on her luck that she is seeking public assistance… and a public employee who takes advantage of that situation.” he said.

A ruling will occur in the coming months.