prepare a written answer to the following case (Case 29.4 on page 512 of the textbook) using the IRAC format and providing citation(s) as necessary, as described previously. (You can review how to prepare an answer to a Critical Legal Thinking Case found in Week 1 and in the textbook at page 16.) Remember that there is no single correct answer to cases.

29.4 Scope of Employment Kenya Massey and Raymond Rodriquez entered a Starbucks coffee shop in Manhattan, New York. The couple ordered two beverages from a Starbucks employee and paid for the drinks. When Massey and Rodriquez moved toward the seating area while waiting for their drinks to be prepared, Karen Morales, the shift supervisor at the store, told Massey and Rodriquez that they could not sit down because the store was closing. Massey informed Morales that when she received her drinks, she and Rodriquez intended to sit and enjoy them at Starbucks.

Morales instructed a Starbucks employee to cancel Masseys beverage order and refund Masseys money. Massey asked to speak with a manager. Morales identified herself as the manager and told Massey to get a life. At that point, Starbucks employee Melissa Polanco told Massey, I get off at 10:00, and we can go outside. Massey and Rodriquez exited and walked away from the store while Massey and the employees yelled profanities at each other. Massey continued to walk away, and Polanco ran after and caught her, then punched Massey in the face. Morales then jumped on Masseys back, and a scuffle ensued. A pedestrian passerby finally separated the parties. Masseys face was bleeding when she got up. The Starbucks employees who were involved in the altercation were terminated by Starbucks. Massey sued Starbucks for damages for the injuries she suffered. Starbucks moved for summary judgment, alleging that the employees were not acting within the scope of their employment when they assaulted Massey. Were the employees who injured Massey acting within their scope of employment? Massey v. Starbucks Corporation, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12993 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2004)