F: Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, suffered from a speech impediment which caused him to stutter, and insecurity because of it, and Jones was aware of this fact. Jones, P’s supervisor, approached the P over 30 times at work and verbally and physically mimicked his stuttering disability. P had been under treatment of physician for a nervous condition for 6 years prior to the commencement of Jones’ harassment.
I: Whether the humiliation suffered from D, because of P’s speech impediment, was intense to constitute severe emotional distress under the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
R: the humiliation suffered from D, because of P’s speech impediment, was not intense to constitute severe emotional distress under IIED.
A: We find no evidence that the distress was severe within the contemplation of the rule requiring the establishment of that element of the tort. The evidence that Jones reprehensible conduct humiliated Harris and caused him emotional distress, which was manifested by an aggravation of Harris preexisting nervous condition and a worsening of his speech impediment was vague and weak at best.
Co: Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community The personality of the individual to whom the misconduct is directed is also a factor. There is a difference btw violent and vile profanity addressed to a lady, and the same language to a Butte miner and a US marine.
Support us by: