Employment & Labor Publications

EMPLOYER'S BAD CONDUCT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

By Stuart M. Katz

          Former employees often feel hurt by their former employer's conduct towards them.  Does this bad conduct necessarily form the basis for a claim that the employer intentionally caused the employee emotional distress?  A recent Connecticut Appellate Court decision confirmed that the answer is "no."
          In Bator v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, the Connecticut Appellate Court considered the case of George Bator.  Mr. Bator is a former employee of Yale-New Haven Hospital. ("YNHH"), where he began working in 1989.  He claims that during the course of his 12 years of employment at YHNN, its employees subjected him to abusive and disparate treatment.  This alleged treatment included various incidents of rude behavior towards Mr. Bator, false accusations of conduct against him that resulted in disciplinary action and a series of written warnings.   He claimed that as a result of this bad treatment, he suffered severe emotional distress that he could no longer endure.  He resigned on March 28, 2001 and thereafter sued YNHH, claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress.
          YNHH asked the Superior Court to strike this claim, attacking its legal sufficiency.   The Superior Court granted YNHH's motion and Mr. Bator appealed.
          In considering Mr. Bator's appeal, the Appellate Court reviewed the burden that a former employee must satisfy in order to maintain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, stating that the complaint filed in court must allege conduct that "exceeds all bounds usually tolerated by decent society…" 

The Appellate Court restated the four elements that a plaintiff must prove:

1.         That the employer (or its agent) intended to inflict emotional distress or knew or should have known that emotional distress was a likely result of its conduct;

            2.         That the conduct was extreme and outrageous;

            3.         That the employer's conduct was the cause of the plaintiff's distress; and

            4.         That the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was severe.

               The Appellate Court concluded that the facts alleged by Mr. Bator would not lead a member of the community to exclaim "Outrageous!"  Thus, the Court concluded, "Conduct on the part of the defendant that is merely insulting or displays bad manners or results in hard feelings is insufficient to form the basis for an action based on intentional infliction of emotional distress."
          Does the Bator decision give employers license to treat their employees poorly?  Certainly not.  But the decision does reflect the reality of life that unpleasantness in the workplace is not always actionable.