Final answer:
The court's ruling on Time Warner's motion to dismiss Darlene's suit would depend on whether Lively's actions were within the scope of their employment and contravened federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Cases like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and Griggs v. Duke Power Co. have established that employers can be held liable for employment discrimination enacted by their employees.
Step-by-step explanation:
If Time Warner files a motion to dismiss Darlene's suit on the grounds that it cannot be liable for an employee's actions as a matter of law, the court's ruling would depend on the relationship between the employee's actions and their employment. In cases of employment discrimination, such as those highlighted by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Supreme Court rulings in cases like Griggs v. Duke Power Co., employers can be held liable for discriminatory practices of their employees if those actions are within the scope of employment and violate federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The court would need to consider whether Lively's actions, the basis for Darlene's suit, were within the scope of their employment and whether there is a legal basis to attribute Lively's actions to Time Warner. The precedent set by prior Supreme Court rulings related to employment discrimination and the protections afforded by acts like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act suggest that employers can be held liable for the discriminatory actions of their employees, especially if such actions have a lasting discriminatory effect, like unequal paychecks.
However, without more details about the nature of Lively's actions and how they relate to Darlene's employment, it's difficult to make a definitive prediction on how the court should rule. Factors such as establishing employer liability under vicarious liability principles, as well as the existence of any relevant employer policies or practices, could affect the outcome.