INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Texas Supreme Court holds IIED rarely applies in the employment environment
(04/06/00)
Scope:
In many labor disputes, disgruntled employees file suits against the employer and include claims for "intentional infliction of the emotional distress"( "IIED"). In a landmark case decided April 6, 2000, the Texas Supreme Court has further narrowed the circumstances in which IIED may be utilized in the employment context, but the IEED claim can still be brought.
The City of Midland case:
Various disgruntled police officers suited the City of Midland attacking the reclassification of their police employment to civilian positions. Among other theories, including age discrimination (ADA) claims, the police officers sued for IIED. Dismissal of the IEED claims was upheld the Texas Supreme Court.
What is IEED:
Intentional infliction of emotional distress occurs where: (1) a party acts intentionally or recklessly; (2) with conduct which is extreme and outrageous; (3) which causes the plaintiff emotional distress; (4) and which emotional distress is "severe". The conduct must be so outrageous and character, and so extreme in degree, so as to go beyond the all possible bounds of decency, and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Insensitive or even rude behavior, insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities are not generally actionable as IIED. The touchstone is true "severe distress."
City of Midland- Employment IIED:
The Texas Supreme Court reiterated that ordinarily, IIED does not apply in ordinary employment disputes. It arises in the workplace only in the most unusual circumstances. Examples where IIED has been denied include: (1) investigations regarding plausible claims that an employee had engaged in theft; (2) escorting a terminated employee from premises with a security guard; (3) and even wrongful transfers, failures to promote, or employee dismissals. In the Midland case the court ruled that the decision to re-classify employment positions did not constitute IIED. Employers must be permitted to exercise managerial functions necessary for the ordinary operation of a business enterprise which includes the ability to supervise, review, criticize, demote, transfer and to discipline employees.
IIED still can occur in the work environment:
In the GTE case, decided by the Supreme Court, in 1999, a former military sergeant oversaw a shipping department. Formal complaints were filed against him, counseling occurred, but the supervisor did not change. He utilized explicit vulgarity on a daily basis, had temper tantrums laced with physical violence and threats of physical violence, engaged in explicit sexual innuendo, humiliated employees under the guise of discipline, implemented unequal job conditions as punitive measures, and threatened employees with unjustified termination. He acted like a vulgar drill sergeant but in the corporate environment.
Straight Talk:
If a supervisor engages in ongoing abuse and harassment, which is extreme and outrageous, IIED may be pursued. Such conduct can result in large damage awards against the offending employee, and in certain cases, against the employer as well. Prompt consistent action by management, based upon legal advice ordinarily can prevent an IEED claim from succeeding. Delay or inaction may result in disastrous financial consequences and significant adverse publicity.
Back
to STRAIGHT TALK Front Page
DISCLAIMER:
The information contained in this Web site does not constitute legal
advice but is provided for informational purposes only. Review of
this Web site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Information
sent via electronic mail may not be confidential, and may not be protected
by attorney-client relationship.
Copyright
© McCue Pauley and Associates, P.C. 2007
|
