business.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The statements alleged by Rivera to be defamatory include statements made by the individual defendants regarding Rivera’s alleged falsification of time cards and his alleged threats against Amtrak employees. As a result of these statements, the police came to Rivera’s home, and Rivera was arrested and faced criminal charges that were ultimately dismissed. These statements were allegedly made by the individual defendants while on the job and concerned matters of interest to Amtrak and its employees. The statements are therefore appropriately characterized as being made within the scope of the individual defendants’ employment for purposes of respondeat superior. See McLachlan v. Bell, 261 F.3d 908, 912 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the district court erred by
holding that employees defamatory statements made at work about matters relating to work were within the scope of their employment for purposes of respondeat superior and recognizing that californias respondeat superior doctrine imposes a broad rule of liability on employers holding that the liability reform act preempted in part the common law doctrine of respondeat superior recognizing respondeat superior liability holding that employees violation of his employers policy against drinking on the job does not preclude liability under respondeat superior holding that a plaintiffs direct negligence claims against an employer are not precluded by the employers admission of respondeat superior liability