102. In Howard, for example, the court rejected the argument that a town chairwoman’s scope of employment was determined solely by reference to her official duties as set forth in the town’s bylaws: “We decline to adopt such a restrictive interpretation of the term for the purposes of G.L. c. 258, § 9. Moreover, and contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertion, it is ordinarily the actual and customary, rather than formally described, duties which determine scope of employment.” Id.; see also Giacomuzzi v. Klein, 324 Mass. 689, 88 N.E.2d 548 (1949) (employee’s unauthorized act of inviting dry cleaning customer to shop’s back room to identify clothing was within the employee’s scope of employment); cf. Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 865, 875 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Forbidden and criminal acts may also be
holding that declaratory judgments fall outside the scope of the court of claims jurisdiction recognizing congresss intent to take into consideration the special characteristics of military employment when determining scope of employment for respondeat superior purposes under the ftca holding that the district court in granting the governments motion to dismiss ftca claims incorrectly applied scope of authority test instead of the broader scope of employment test holding the principals grant of authority to speak is not the main concern in applying the partyadmission exception to the hearsay rule instead the test is whether the statement concerns matters within the scope of the employment holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss