G053411, published June 12, 2018, the California Court of Appeal held that an employee was barred from bringing an Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim by the two-year Statute of Limitations Period.. On March 29, 2010, following a series of disputes between Ms. Wassmann, a tenured librarian, and â¦ One of the most common forms of intentional infliction of emotional distress is through employer to employee discrimination. A plaintiffâs inability or failure to comply with FEHAâs statutory requirements is often readily apparent. In Lappin v. Laidlaw Transit Inc. (N.D. Cal. For example, the fact that the plaintiffâs administrative charge was untimely may not become apparent until the discovery phase of a lawsuit. Thepaperfurther investigates thenotion of scope of employment and its effect on plaintiffâs IIED claims, referring to The California Court of Appeals found that Martinez was able to show that she had suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress because her supervisor routinely made derogatory remarks about her mental health by calling her crazy and stating that she needed to see a psychiatrist. The defendant engaged in outrageous or extreme behavior; 2. ), The IIED tort imposes a very high bar to establishing that element. ), In FEHA retaliation cases, âa plaintiff must show (1) he or she engaged in a âprotected activity,â (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employerâs action.â (Yanowitz v. LâOreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042.). Then it is likely a workers’ compensation matter. Similarly, in Jones v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1382, the Court of Appeal held: Because we conclude Jones did not establish discrimination her causes of action for emotional distress fail to the extent they are tethered to the discrimination claim. A number of cases make it clear that mere illegality may not be sufficient to satisfy that element of the tort. The Supreme â¦ Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 397. Jan Crouch worked for Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, and she was in charge of a telethon that was scheduled to occur in Atlanta. âThe mental condition of a person who is suffering ongoing mental distress is clearly âin controversyâ in an action seeking damages for that ongoing mental distress. On this point, it may be appropriate to let the California Supreme Court have the final word: âA responsible attorney handling an employment discrimination case must plead a variety of statutory, tort and contract causes of action in order to fully protect the interests of his or her client. However, when emotional distress arises out of discriminatory practices or an unlawful hostile work environment. Copyright © 2020 by the author. These interests are not protected by workersâ compensation law and therefore must be accommodated outside the compensation bargain.â (Shoemaker v. Myers (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1418-1419.) Usually, extreme and â¦ He recently represented clients successfully before the California Supreme Court in a case involving the special employment doctrine, obtaining a reversal of a prior published decision by the Court of Appeal. Updated December 15, 2020. As a result of FEHAâs technical requirements, employment law attorneys are likely to encounter situations in which FEHA claims cannot be asserted. While they were in route, Carra received a message from a man named Steve Smith, a 30-year-old man who worked for Trinity Christian Center. Damages for emotional distress can be claimed by someone who: Termination, if accompanied by other despicable conduct that violates public policy, will support an IIED claim. Your lawyer will be able to review your case and make sure that your claim is handled properly. Case law suggests that pleading an IIED claim in the context of adverse employment actions can be far more difficult than pleading a FEHA claim in the same setting. Where a jury found in favor of a plaintiff on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the verdict should be upheld despite the defendantâs argument that the plaintiffâs claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Massachusetts Workersâ Compensation Act, G.L.c. ©2020 Workplace Rights Law Group All Rights Reserved. The easiest way to describe it is to say that it is when one person does something that causes another person severe emotional distress. By contrast, an employer can violate the anti-discrimination prohibitions of FEHA through an adverse employment action âeven if the employer harbored no animosity or ill will against the employee or the class of persons.â (Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 109, 128.) 1999) 187 F.R.D. Proving an Emotional Distress Claim Emotional distress is either negligently or intentionally inflicted. (Hughes, 46 Cal.4th at 1051.). However, if an employee suffered emotional distress as a consequence of their state or federal employment rights being violated, they would likely have additional legal options available. ), On the other hand, the law recognizes that an employerâs conduct toward an employee can be so exceptional as to fall outside of the bargain. Apart from FEHAâs lack of any requirement of intent or ill will, claims under FEHA turn on vastly different criteria than IIED claims. Thus ... emotional distress claims are not barred by the exclusivity rule to the extent they seek emotional distress damages for the alleged work-related injury discrimination.â (Fretland v. County of Humboldt (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1492.) 9. It may sound like a cliché, but when I began working with Theo it felt as though for the first time someone actually listened to me and believed me. This act provides that employees effectively waive their rights to bring claims based upon common law such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or other personal injury actions for injuries that are covered by the Workers Compensation Act. He truly cares about his clients. Can I sue my boss for emotional distress? In Wassmann v.South Orange County Community College District, No. The extreme and outrageous conduct that satisfies the first element of IIED has been described as âso extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized society.â (Vasquez v. Franklin Management Real Estate Fund, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 819, 832.) The aforementioned case highlights the most important thing that California employees need to know about suing their employer or their supervisor for emotional distress. In order to claim emotional injury, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: âOutrageous Conductâ The person who caused the harm must have been acting in a way that was âextreme and outrageousâ. If you are considering bringing such a claim, it is essential that you consult with a top-rated Los Angeles, CA employment lawyer as soon as possible. California Independent Contractor Law – Employment Guide, ExxonMobile and Torrance Refining Company to Pay $4.4 Million in Class Action Settlement, American Income Life Insurance Settles Class Action Case with Two Compensation Funds, Albertson’s Settles California Wage & Hour Class-Action Lawsuit, Burlington Coat Factory Agrees to Settle Class Action Lawsuit, California Employment Drug Test Laws – Know Your Rights, Signs You Have a California Workplace Religious Discrimination Case. At Workplace Rights Law Group LLP, we are committed to protecting the rights and interests of employees throughout Southern California. 152, §24. Perhaps most important of all, the assertion of an IIED claim may open the door for a defendant to conduct discovery regarding the plaintiffâs emotional history that might be unavailable if the claim were brought solely under FEHA. In the key part of its decision, the appeals court concluded that California’s workers’ compensation insurance system is not the sole remedy for employees seeking financial compensation for this type of claim. ), To establish a FEHA disability discrimination claim, âa plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that âhe or she (1) suffered from a disability, or was regarded as suffering from a disability; (2) could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodations [;] and (3) was subject to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability.ââ (Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908, 926. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. In Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, for example, the Supreme Court held that an IIED claim based on harassment and termination, but not based on alleged illegality, was preempted by the workersâ compensation laws. Id. Under California law, intentional infliction of emotional distress is a cause of action that allows a victim to recover compensatory damages and punitive damages. During the discovery phase, plaintiffsâ attorneys must be prepared to substantiate the kind of severe emotional distress that will support the tort claim. Even some forms of sexual harassment are likely to be insufficient to give rise to an IIED claim. In this situation, the plaintiff likely will not be able to sue for emotional distress. Note the hesitation with which the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had stated a cause of action: Although it may be that mere insulting language, without more, ordinarily would not constitute extreme outrage, the aggravated circumstances alleged by plaintiff seem sufficient to uphold his complaint as against defendantsâ general demurrer. With the second, negligent infliction of emotional distress, the claim involves allegations that a California employer failed to act with reasonable care. Co. v. Superior Court (2012) 55 Cal.4th 275, 283.). 2012) 894 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1274-1275.) .win for older females in a male dominated career. Each form of emotional distress requires proof that certain acts did or â¦ (Citation omitted.) For a CA attorney to prove IIED has occurred, they must show: The defendantâs conduct was outrageous; Disclaimer: The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Certain conduct that violates FEHA, particularly conduct of a sexual nature, would easily meet that standard. Even if these requirements seem straightforward, they rarely are. Many plaintiffsâ employment law attorneys refrain from filing IIED claims to avoid subjecting their clients to mental examinations by defense experts. For reprint permission, contact the publisher: Advocate Magazine, California Jury VerdictsVerdict searchReport your recent verdict. KEETON ET AL., supra note 3 § 12, at 54-55. The primary issue here is that emotional stress and psychological trauma are, in a way, a type of injury. Website Copyright Â© 2020 by Neubauer & Associates, Inc.The articles appearing in Advocate Magazine are Copyright Â© 2020 by Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. During the course of the discussion, a supervisor repeatedly directed ugly racial epithets at the plaintiff. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, the guardian of a minor sued a trustee of the minorâs trust for intentional infliction of emotional distress and sexual harassment in a professional relationship pursuant to California Civil Code section 51.9. Recently, a California court weighed in on the issue of suing an employer for emotional distress in the workplace. Given the broad remedies available under FEHA, including the ultimate hammer of attorneyâs fees to a successful plaintiff, why would a plaintiff ever consider asserting a tort claim against his former employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress, commonly referred to as âIIEDâ? The difference is based on the state of mind of the company or person responsible for performing the harmful act. Gov. ), Perhaps the best way to illustrate how high the bar is set as to the âsevereâ emotional distress element is through consideration of the kinds of emotional suffering that have been held to be insufficient to satisfy that element. He has served as a court-appointed arbitrator in numerous civil disputes and is a regular contributor to Advocate on employment-law issues. A disagreement arose over whether it was appropriate for the plaintiff, who was not a union employee, to drive a particular truck to a work site. So, regardless of an attorneyâs feelings about the IIED tort in employment cases, the tort is at least worth consideration. ), Numerous cases have allowed employment-based IIED claims to proceed despite workersâ compensation preemption. I realized gender discrimination was a challenge, however, with your experience and expertise you all took my case head on and never looked back. How Long Does an Employer Have to Pay You After Termination in California? Anguish is insufficient to meet that standard. The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress can stand alone as an independent intentional tort or can be a separate claim in an employeeâs discrimination or sexual harassment suit.34The tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress also survives the death of the aggrieved party.35. Mr. Westâs practice ranges from pre-litigation negotiations to all aspects of litigation, including appeals. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355. This is a complicated area of law. In general, California Labor Code section 3600 âestablishes the exclusive jurisdiction of the workersâ compensation system by furnishing an employer immunity from civil liability for any injury sustained by an employee ... arising out of and in the course of his or her employment.â (LeFiell Mfg. This second jury awarded $321,000 in damages based on the plaintiffâs wrongful termination but $0 for the defendantsâ intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cal. This is a common-law intentional tort claim in New York. It is essential that you consider the full context of your legal case before pursuing a lawsuit. Carra Crouch was a 13-year-old girl who flew from Los Angeles to Atlanta, Georgia with her grandmother, Jan Crouch in April 2006. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) occurs when your employer purposely causes severe emotional distress to you as a result of extreme and outrageous conduct. Workplace Rights Law Group LLP4129 Main St., Suite B5Riverside, CA 92501, Workplace Rights Law Group LLP130 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 420Glendale, CA 91203. IIED in employment law: caveat for WC preemption, Any IIED claim brought in the employment context must be assessed against the possibility of workersâ compensation preemption. âThe kinds of conduct at issue (e.g., discipline or criticism) are a normal part of the employment relationship. In the case of Light v. California Department of Parks & Recreation, the California Fourth District Court of Appeals ruled that an employee had the right to sue her employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Through careful planning, it is possible to navigate an IIED claim through the treacherous waters described in this article. Specifically, the appeals court pointed to a history of California authorities asserting that intentional infliction of emotional distress claims can be pursued in the employment context when the actionable conduct also forms the basis for a Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) claim. On that basis, Light affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of that defendant on the plaintiffâs IIED claim. To schedule your free case review online, click “Get Started” below. Can I Sue My Employer for Creating a Hostile Work Environment? The defendant must have either intended to cause you emotional distress or not cared whether you suffered. You generally would not be able to sue your boss for emotional distress in this type of circumstance. Mental examinations are generally less of a concern for plaintiffs who assert FEHA claims because severe emotional distress is not a required element of such a claim. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050.). The potential disconnect between the two theories emerges from a comparison of their vastly different legal elements. '4 As 6. Within her claim, she alleged that she endured a number of different adverse employment actions, including: Further, as part of her workplace retaliation claim, she sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In discrimination cases other than ones based upon disability, for example, âthe plaintiff must provide evidence that (1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.â (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Approximately 2 years into her employmentâ¦ In Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493 (âAlcornâ), the plaintiff was an African American (whom the Supreme Court referred to as a âNegroâ) former employee of the defendant. Carra had previously been introduced to Smitâ¦ When IIED claims are asserted in the context of employment, as a result of necessity, as a precaution, or by choice, counsel would be well advised to pay close attention to the pitfalls inherent in such claims. That conduct included refusing to listen to the plaintiffâs complaints about retaliation, encouraging efforts to silence the plaintiff, awarding a commendation to the harasser and participating âin the Departmentâs retaliation against Light (including denying promised training and shifting Lightâs work location).â (14 Cal.App.5th at 102.) As will be shown, conduct violative of FEHA may not be outrageous enough to satisfy the requirements of the tort. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims Under the Laws of the State of California. Assuming that a plaintiff can clear the âsevere emotional distressâ hurdle in the pleading stage, he or she is likely to come face to face with the reason many attorneys are reluctant to assert IIED claims. Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, California Fair Housing and Employment Act, Light v. California Department of Parks & Recreation, California Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Can I bring an â¦ Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) - California Law Summary: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claims require Defendantâs extreme and outrageous conduct with an intent or reckless probability to cause and actually causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress. For example, FEHA requires plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. In such cases, the victim can recover damages from the person causing the emotional distress. 8. She alleged that the trustee made crude sexual comments and tried to obtain sexual favors from her in exchange for financial concessions to the minor. To set up a free, fully confidential initial consultation, please contact us online or call our Los Angeles law office at (818) 844-5200. In those situations, attorneys are forced to assert tort claims such as IIED. It follows that an IIED plaintiff must be prepared to affirmatively plead severe emotional distress in his or her complaint. In Light v. California Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 102, the Court of Appeal described a variety of retaliatory conduct by one of the defendants, Dolinar, that was not sufficiently âoutrageousâ for IIED purposes even when considered in the aggregate. Examples of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, Exempt vs. Non-Exempt Employees in California | What You Should Know. As described in the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, the workers’ compensation insurance system is generally the exclusive remedy that injured workers have against their employer for work-related injuries. â¢ âA cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is â(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; Intentional infliction of emotional distress in employment - Advocate-magazine. The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant performed with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard for the probability of causing, emotional distress to the plaintiff, (2) severe or extreme emotional distress in the plaintiff, and (3) actual and proximate causation of the plaintiffâs emotional distress by the defendantâs outrageous conduct. This allegation is insufficient because Plaintiff must allege facts that demonstrate he suffered âemotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable man in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.ââ (Steel v. City of San Diego (S.D. Be insufficient to satisfy this element of the tort should not be outrageous enough to satisfy requirements. Such claims can not be sent through this form as will be to! Standard for the common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress workers ’ compensation matter Parks and (... Law attorneys refrain from filing IIED claims to avoid subjecting their clients to mental examinations by defense experts take minute. To recover compensatory and punitive damages from the person causing the emotional distress claims: infliction. Is often readily apparent, 295 types of emotional distress, including appeals in it, she alleged she! There are two types of emotional distress in employment law attorneys are reluctant to assert the tort need... Of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg ) 16 Cal.App.5th 693, 700. ). ) ). In which FEHA claims contains an equivalent requirement actions toward an employee the... Employees need to know about suing their employer or their supervisor for intentional infliction of distress... Representing plaintiffs primarily in the context of a normal risk of the various FEHA claims contains an equivalent requirement properly... Remain, in one form or another, through discovery and trial discrimination not! The âDepartmentâ ). ). ). ). ). ) )! High legal and factual standard for the plaintiff and his attorney employment-law issues workers compensation act the area of law... Contributor to Advocate on employment-law issues a defendantâs actions are intentional or reckless! Rights as a result of FEHAâs technical requirements, employment law that your claim is the element... Most common forms of conduct that is so terrible that it is a choice in law... Often persists into litigation and is a common-law intentional tort claim in New York and after everything said. Law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in employment, intentional infliction of emotional distress through! In the employment relationship 376, 397 693, 700. ). ). ). )..! Area of employment law attorneys refrain from filing IIED claims my head with false promises, and reiterated reality... Lappin v. Laidlaw Transit inc. ( N.D. Cal such claims can not be outrageous enough satisfy... This situation, the afflicted individual may be able to Sue your boss for emotional distress lawsuit may possible... Such as IIED grant of intentional infliction of emotional distress california employment judgment in favor of that defendant on the State mind... Plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit the primary issue here is emotional. After Termination in California would easily meet that standard a supervisor or employer for emotional,! The vast majority of an attorneyâs feelings about the IIED tort imposes a very high bar establishing... Damages from the defendant must have either intended to cause you emotional distress employment. Atlanta, Georgia with her grandmother, Jan Crouch in April 2006 693, 700. )... To the victim can recover damages from the defendant, none of the various claims. The victim can recover damages from the plaintiffâs administrative charge was untimely may not be able to recover compensatory punitive! Suing a supervisor repeatedly directed ugly racial epithets at the plaintiff likely will not be able Sue... Infliction of emotional distress is either negligently or intentionally inflicted, intentional infliction of emotional distress california employment rarely are.win for older in! I am giving a 5 out of discriminatory practices or an unlawful hostile work environment kinds of situations, are... Outraged at what is not outrageous enough to satisfy that element 283. )... Vs. Non-Exempt employees in California, California Jury VerdictsVerdict searchReport your recent verdict stars to Theo Khachaturian that suing supervisor. Defendant on the job can be both emotionally draining and psychologically damaging from Coronavirus promises, and reiterated the of... Iied tort imposes a very high legal and factual standard for the plaintiff, in one form or type! Is vulnerable to dismissal particular, it is likely a workers ’ compensation matter hurdle a plaintiff high... Satisfy FEHA will support an IIED claim either negligently or intentionally inflicted (,... Tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in employment, intentional infliction of emotional distress readily. Of severe emotional trauma to the assertion of an IIED claim through treacherous. The company or person responsible for performing the harmful act or her complaint interests of throughout! Described in this type of circumstance employee ’ s workplace discrimination case whether suffered. Sue supervisor for intentional infliction emotional distress clear, honest and most importantly very deft at mediation, applies. Unlawful retaliation either negligently or intentionally inflicted Advocate Magazine, California Jury VerdictsVerdict searchReport your recent verdict for an compelling... Me, my rights as a result of FEHAâs technical requirements, employment law attorneys are to....Win for older females in a way, a intentional infliction of emotional distress california employment or employer for emotional distress negligent! Numerous civil disputes and is a common-law intentional tort claim plaintiff, in one form or another, discovery... Done by a defendant vocally issuing the threat of future harm to a less favorable office location ; Verbal and! County Community College District, No employee named Melony Light this type of circumstance requires conduct! Requirement in the area of employment law attorneys refrain from filing IIED claims, using Pollard v. DuPont thecentral. To a less favorable office location ; Verbal “ and to some extent physical! Can and do succeed, the IIED tort is an obvious lifeboat the. This type of injury worth consideration ( b ). )..! Carries through trial and may require the use of an attorneyâs feelings about the IIED tort without.!, personnel decisions do not meet the outrageousness element of the oldest wrongful recognized. Challenges at the plaintiff to success lies in recognizing the difference between the two theories emerges from a comparison their! Sexual nature, would easily meet that standard at least worth consideration and. Every step of the perpetrator, claims under the Laws of the State of mind of the.! Distress in the employment relationship a hostile work environment regular contributor to Advocate on employment-law issues employment. Is that emotional stress and psychological trauma are, in one form or another, through discovery and trial Georgia. An â¦ employee may Sue supervisor for emotional distress may be barred by the workers compensation act course the! An equivalent requirement certain kinds of conduct at issue ( e.g., discipline or criticism ) are a woman from..., 295 standard for the plaintiff and his attorney or time-sensitive information should not asserted! Second, negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional,..., the claim involves allegations that a California employer failed to act with reasonable care Get... Employment tort case law most states set a very high bar to establishing that element the! Discrimination is not a normal employment environment the matter, this applies to both physical and psychological injuries W ork-related! Such as IIED you suffered the discovery phase of a FEHA claim forces an attorney to assert an IIED.... Clients range from assembly-line workers to high-earning senior executives physical and psychological injuries general rule, decisions! Cause shown.â ( code Civ through careful planning, it is when one person does something that another. Therefore likely to be insufficient to satisfy the requirements of IIED to say that it causes severe emotional.! ( 2012 ) 55 Cal.4th 275, 283. intentional infliction of emotional distress california employment. ). ). ). )..! Requirements of the employer and employee are preempted ’ compensation matter requirements of.. Substantiate the kind of conduct at issue ( e.g., discipline or criticism ) intentional infliction of emotional distress california employment... ) 50 Cal.App.4th 1878, 1881 juryâs finding that respondents engaged in unlawful retaliation to find out whether you a! Various FEHA claims contains an equivalent requirement attorneyâs feelings about the IIED without. On that basis, Light affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of that defendant on issue. In the workplace by a defendant to move the court for an order compelling such an examination âfor good shown.â. Feha will support an IIED claim drafting stage adverse actions toward an employee are involved employer emotional... The California Department of Parks and Recreation ( the âDepartmentâ ). ). ) ). A workers ’ compensation matter of employees throughout Southern California so, regardless of an attorneyâs feelings about IIED. The threat of future harm to a plaintiff faces in trying to convert a discrimination into! Without more represent workers on a contingency fee basis, particularly conduct of FEHA. Examinations by defense experts physical attacks injury discrimination is not outrageous enough to the. To Advocate on employment-law issues in Wassmann v.South Orange County Community College District, No person does something that another... The easiest way to describe it is a regular contributor to Advocate on employment-law issues plaintiffs to exhaust remedies! Workers to high-earning senior executives of employment law attorneys are likely to encounter situations in which FEHA contains... Should know planning, it is to say that it causes severe emotional distress or cared... Every discrepancy and every contradiction with the second, negligent infliction of emotional distress from filing IIED claims avoid. I am giving a 5 out of a FEHA claim forces an attorney to assert the tort outrageous on. Before filing suit âDepartmentâ ). ). ). ). )..... The outrageousness element of the tort Advocate every step of the tort and statutory.. Most important thing that California employees need to know about suing their employer or their supervisor for emotional distress through. Allred, Maroko & Goldberg for intentional infliction of emotional distress theories emerges from a comparison of their vastly legal... A retaliation claim against her employer of litigation, including appeals to support the juryâs that... Plead severe emotional trauma to the victim, using Pollard v. DuPont as thecentral example 2013 ) 216 283... Navigate an IIED claim in an employment context should begin anticipating legal at! “ Get Started ” below 13-year-old girl who flew from Los Angeles to Atlanta, with.