Workplace Torts: Case Studies

Opinions differ on what constitutes an on-the-job tort.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Joyce worked for a city department of corrections. She filed a sex discrimination complaint under Title VII, based on the conduct of her supervisor, Ed. When Joyce's case went to trial, she testified that Ed had locked her in the strip search room and forcibly kissed her and that he touched her, asked her to come to his house, and talked to her about oral sex. When Joyce rebuffed Ed, he tried to get her in trouble by accusing her of stealing inmate property.

A jury decided that Joyce had been the victim of sexual harassment. Its finding was affirmed by a court on appeal.

Did Joyce also have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Ed? Yes. The court analyzed this tort claim by looking to the state law of intentional infliction. Under state law, the issues were: (1) was there extreme and outrageous conduct? (2) did the conduct intentionally or recklessly cause Joyce's severe emotional distress?

Ed tried to downplay his conduct, but the court said that his conduct, as described by Joyce, was extreme and that it was the direct cause of her nervous breakdown. A psychiatrist testified that Ed's conduct had caused Joyce to relive repressed emotions about childhood sexual abuse at the hands of her father. Abuse in her adult life, again by an authority figure, destroyed her ability to cope and caused her to react very severely to the sexual harassment. In fact, the psychiatrist diagnosed Joyce as suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder caused by Ed's repeated sexual advances. All these factors supported Joyce's tort claim.

Did the workers' compensation law bar Joyce's tort claim? No. The court ruled that Joyce's tort claims were so closely linked to her sexual harassment claim that they could not be covered by the workers' compensation law, which was not designed to cover sexual harassment claims.

Company Tort Liability

Della was a registered nurse who enrolled in an anesthesiology program at a local school. After Della was removed from the program for poor performance, she brought sexual harassment and tort claims against the school based on the conduct of one of her instructors, Michael. She said that he talked to her about his sex life, told her that he wanted a "shot of leg," and, more than once, touched and grabbed her buttocks.

Did Della have a claim for invasion of privacy? Yes. Under state law, invasion of privacy was defined as wrongfully intruding into a person's private activities in a way that would either outrage a reasonable person or would cause a reasonable person mental suffering or humiliation. The court ruled that striking a person on the buttocks could be considered an invasion of privacy by Michael.

Could the school have been liable for the invasion of Della's privacy? You will recall that employers are not automatically liable for the torts of their employees. In this case, the court ruled that the school would be liable for Michael's conduct only if Della could show that his bad acts were within the scope of his employment and for the advancement of the school's business or that the school had authorized, approved, or condoned his conduct.

Della could not show that Michael's conduct was within the scope of his employment or for the betterment of the school because he acted solely to satisfy his own personal sexual desires.

Had the school authorized his conduct? To prove this, Della must show that the school actually knew about Michael's conduct, that it knew or should have known that his conduct was unlawful, and that, despite this knowledge, it failed to take adequate steps to remedy the situation.

Della was able to show that the school knew that Michael was sexually harassing her because she had reported him to a supervisor. But the school argued that it had taken appropriate remedial action by counseling Michael. The court found, however, that there was a dispute as to whether counseling was sufficient, given what Michael had done, and as to whether Michael had really stopped harassing Della after being counseled. The court ruled that a jury would need to decide these issues.

Did Della have a claim for assault and battery? Against whom? Under state law, assault and battery were defined as touching a person in rudeness or anger. As the court stated, "A successful assault becomes a battery." State law did not require actual bodily pain. The court found that the jury would have to decide the issue because there was a dispute as to whether, when Michael touched Della's buttocks, he had done so in anger or whether he had done it jokingly. There was also a dispute as to whether Michael's comments had made Della afraid that she was about to be assaulted.

The court ruled that the school was not liable for assault and battery. The school showed that, after Michael was counseled, he no longer touched Della in any way. Della herself had admitted that he was a "perfect gentleman" after the counseling. So, she could not prove that the school had authorized or approved or condoned his conduct.