The issue is purely whether Morrisons is vicariously liable.
If it is true that Morrisons didn't take action back when it happened, then they can be held liable. As near as I can tell, he was disciplined by Morrisons, but remained an employee. This appears to be what the case is now about. Had Morrison terminated his employment with previous offenses, it could have been a different situation.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
