In Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 3 (La. 5/21/96), 673 So. 2d 994, 996, a nursing supervisor, on the clock and on the hospital premises, sexually assaulted a co-worker. The Court found that the likelihood that a nursing supervisor would find an employee alone in the nurses' lounge and sexually assault her was "not a risk fairly attributable to the performance of the supervisor's duties." Id. at p. 9, 673 So. 2d at 999. Further, the Court found that the sexual assault on the technician was "entirely extraneous to his employer's business." Id. at p. 9, 673 So. 2d at 1000. The court applying under the LeBrane factors, noted that the tort occurred during the hours of employment and on the employer's premises, thereby satisfying the third and fourth factors under LeBrane. The court held that the tortious act was not employment-rooted nor reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee's duties. The Court in Baumeister stated: The LeBrane court expressly noted that the 'employees' tortious conduct occurred while the employee was at least partly actuated by his purpose of acting for his employer in the discharge of the recalcitrant co-employee, and it was reasonably consequent upon or incident to his performance of his employment function of hiring and firing sub-employees.' Baumeister, 673 So. 2d 994 at 997. The Baumeister Court found that the defendant's actions in precipitating unwanted sexual contact with the plaintiff did not further the employer's business and was not incidental to the performance of defendant's supervisory duties. Furthermore, the court found that the sexual assault was entirely extraneous to the employer's interest and did not involve the threat of the loss of employment. The court therefore held that defendant's acts were not employment-rooted. In short, an employee was sexually assaulted by a co-employee. The trial court held the employer vicariously liable and this court affirmed. The supreme court reversed, however, finding that neither the first nor second factor from LeBrane was present. Regarding the "incident to performance of duties" factor, the supreme court acknowledged that a supervisor may reasonably become involved in a dispute with a "recalcitrant underling." Baumeister involved sexual assault which the supreme court found to be entirely extraneous to the employer's interest and not a case where a supervisor's performance duties led to an intentional tort.