Bizarre and Annoying Conduct May Not Be Outrageous Enough To Get Damages, August 19, 2003
A recent Minnesota case illustrates the difficulties in proving an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim in a workplace setting. In Langeslag v. KYMN Inc., No. C7-02-635 (Minn. July 17, 2003), the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a jury award of $535,000 in favor of a radio station owner who claimed he suffered severe emotional distress at the hands of one of his female sales employees. The station owner complained that (i) the sales employee made two false reports about him to the police; (ii) she constantly threatened to sue him (which she eventually did); and (iii) she often instigated workplace arguments with the station owner, using vulgarity and invading his physical space, to harass and annoy him. As a result of this conduct, the station owner claimed that he suffered incessant stomach pain, a condition that caused his hair to fall out in clumps, impotence, a flare-up of an itching rash, and aggravation of his diabetes and eczema.
The court rejected the station owner's claims of emotional distress. Specifically, the court found that the employee's conduct – while bizarre, annoying and unprofessional – was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous to be actionable. In addition, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the employee's conduct resulted in the station owner's physical condition, noting that his symptoms could have been triggered by stress due to a criminal matter in which he was involved.
No Discrimination Found Where Employer Declined To Terminate Employee, August 14, 2003
The Eighth Circuit recently upheld the reasonable principle that an employer's decision to transfer an employee, rather than terminate her, was not discrimination in violation of Title VII. In Jones v. Reliant Energy-ARKLA, No. 02-3740 (8th Cir. July 15, 2003), the court rejected the plaintiff's argument that as an African-American, she was treated differently on the basis of her race because she was offered a transfer to another location when her job was eliminated. The plaintiff complained because the employer had offered termination with a severance package to another white employee whose job was eliminated. The plaintiff claimed that because the employer did not also give her the option of accepting termination with a severance package, but instead only offered her a transfer, she was the victim of disparate treatment as a result of her race.
Not surprisingly, the court found that the plaintiff could not make out a prima facie case of race discrimination because she could not show that she was subject to an adverse employment action. The failure to offer severance benefits is not an adverse employment action. The court refused to interfere with the employer's decision to keep the plaintiff as an employee, avoiding the absurdity of a decision that the plaintiff was discriminated against because she was not fired.
Invasion Of Privacy Claim Not Covered By Workers' Comp, August 5, 2003
A California appellate court recently ruled that an employee's claim of invasion of privacy against her supervisor and employer did not fall within the ambit of the state's workers' compensation statute. Operating Engineers v. Johnson, 20 I.E.R. Cases 180, No. A097487 (Calif. Ct. App. July 3, 2003). The employee successfully sued her employer for violating her right to privacy, in violation of the California Constitution, after her supervisor announced at a meeting, where numerous other employees were present, that the employee would be reprimanded and directed the employee to draft her written reprimand. The supervisor later distributed the meeting minutes, which recorded the plaintiff's disciplinary action in bold print, to a large number of other employees with no need to know about the personnel action. A jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 for the injury to her privacy interest and mental distress.
On appeal, the employer argued that workers' compensation provided the exclusive remedy for the employee's claim. The court rejected this argument, finding that the employee could sue her employer directly for invasion of privacy. The state's workers' compensation statute provides the exclusive remedy for injuries suffered by an employee "arising out of and in the course of the employment." While the court ruled that the plaintiff suffered a personal injury, it found that the invasion of her privacy went beyond the "widely accepted community norms" of reasonable employer conduct. Because the supervisor's actions exceeded acceptable employer conduct, the workers' compensation statute did not offer the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff. She was entitled to pursue her claim in court.
Kollman & Saucier, P.A., The Business Law Building, 1823 York Road, Timonium, MD 21093 Phone: 410-727-4300
Fax: 410-727-4391 © 2008 Kollman & Saucier, P.A. All rights reserved.
Website maintained by Armistead Technologies, Llc.tm
