Joseph Antonio v. SSA SECURITY, INC., d/b/a Security Services of America

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1031
JOSEPH ANTONIO; BULAN JULES−ANTONIO; MICHAEL CLARK; CAROLYN
CLARK; THOMAS COOPER; ANGEL FOUNTAIN−COOPER; GREG GIBBS;
NATALIE GIBBS; GEORGE HALEY; YVONNE HALEY; JACQUE
HIGHTOWER; DAWN HIGHTOWER; KHARI JACKSON; BELINDA JACKSON;
HAROLD JEWETT; CYNTHIA JEWETT; MICHAEL JOHNSON; CRYSTAL
JOHNSON; JAGATH KANKANAMAGE; KETH KANKANAMAGE; KEITH
ROBINSON; TAKEYSHA ROBINSON; EVERTON ROWE; BEVERLY ROWE;
ERIK SMITH; SHARON SMITH; LEONARD SWOOPES; EVORA SWOOPES;
KENDALL WALKER; SAMANTHA WALKER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
DERRICK POTTS; TERRI ROOKARD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SSA SECURITY, INC., d/b/a Security Services of America,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
JEREMY DANIEL PARADY; PATRICK STEPHEN WALSH; MICHAEL
MCINTOSH EVERHART; ROY THOMAS MCCANN; SECURITY SERVICES OF
AMERICA, LLC; ABM INDUSTRIES, INC.; AARON LEE SPEED,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:05-cv-02982-AW)

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Argued: January 30, 2014 Decided: April 3, 2015
Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Floyd wrote the opinion,
in which Judge King and Judge Wynn joined.
ARGUED: Ruthanne Mary Deutsch, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD
LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Gary Alvin Bryant,
WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. ON
BRIEF: Isabelle M. Thabault, Megan Whyte, WASHINGTON LAWYERS
COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C.;
Steven H. Schulman, Joseph L. Decker, Maka Y. Hutson, AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.
Joseph P. Moriarty, J. David Crain, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC,
Norfolk, Virginia; Gerry H. Tostanoski, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG,
LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
FLOYD, Circuit Judge:
The appellants in this case (“the Homeowners”) consist of
30 victims of one of the largest residential arsons in Maryland
history. In this lawsuit, they seek to hold SSA Security, Inc.
(SSA) responsible for the arsons, which were allegedly committed
by one of its security guards. The district court granted
summary judgment to SSA on the Homeowners’ negligence-based
claims and on their claim under the Maryland Security Guards Act
(“the Act”). In doing so, the district court concluded that the
Act merely codified the common-law doctrine of respondeat
superior--in other words, that the Act did not expand that
doctrine in regard to security companies, contrary to the
Homeowners’ contentions.
On appeal, we affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the
Homeowners’ negligence-based claims, but certified to the Court
of Appeals of Maryland the following question:
Does the Maryland Security Guards Act, Md.
Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 19-501,
impose liability beyond common law
principles of respondeat superior such that
an employer may be responsible for off-duty
criminal acts of an employee if the employee
planned any part of the off-duty criminal
acts while he or she was on duty?
Antonio v. SSA Sec., Inc., 749 F.3d 227, 237-38 (4th Cir. 2014).
On March 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals of Maryland answered
the question in the negative. Antonio v. SSA Sec., Inc., Misc.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
No. 1, Sept. Term, 2014, 2015 WL 859831 (Md. Mar. 2, 2015).
After thoroughly analyzing § 19–501’s plain language, its
context in the Maryland Code, its legislative history, and
policy considerations of alternative interpretations, the court
held “that the Maryland Security Guards Act § 19–501 has the
same meaning as Maryland’s common law doctrine of respondeat
superior.” Id. at *12. The Homeowners do not challenge the
district court’s analysis under the common law and therefore
concede that they cannot satisfy the doctrine. See Projects
Mgmt. Co. v. Dyncorp Int’l LLC, 734 F.3d 366, 376 (4th Cir.
2013). Thus, we affirm, in full, the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in SSA’s favor.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --