court’s ruling, which is grounded in Tanks’s original complaint only, does not implicate the federal constitutional and statutory claims that Tanks raised in her Third Amended Complaint, even though, for purposes of this appeal, Lockheed accepts as true all relevant facts alleged in Tanks’s Third Amended Complaint. 18 . Tanks, 332 F.Supp.2d at 962-63. 19 . Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-3(b). 20 . Id. 21 . Tanks, 332 F.Supp.2d at 964 (emphasis added). 22 . See Miller, 444 So.2d at 371. 23 . Adams v. Cinemark U.S.A., Inc., 831 So.2d 1156, 1159 (Miss.2002). 24 . Id. 25 . See id. ("It is obvious that Thomas’s tor-tious act of assaulting Adams was not authorized or in furtherance of Cinemark's business."). See also Hawkins v. Treasure Bay Hotel & Casino, 813 So.2d 757, 759 (Miss.Ct.App.2001)(<HOLDING>). By contrast, when the court has denied
holding that a janitorial workers sexual assault of a student deviated from his duties and was clearly outside of the scope of his employment holding that assault by employee against customer arising out of dispute concerning services that employee was performing not outside scope of employment as a matter of law holding intentional assault by coworker to be outside the course and scope of employment recognizing the doctrine reaches even intentional torts such as an employees alleged assault provided the tortious conduct at issue occurred within the scope of employment holding that an assault that occurred immediately after the employee was discharged was in the course of the employment