Dove v. PNS Stores - 982 F. Supp. 1420 (C.D. Cal. 1997)

Rule:

Under California law, a prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress requires the following: 1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant; 2) with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; 3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and 4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by defendant's outrageous conduct.

Facts:

Plaintiff Daniel Dove began working with defendant Pic 'N' Save’s store located in California in December 1988. Throughout his employment, plaintiff worked as a cashier and recovery clerk. Plaintiff's last day at work was June 18, 1995. Defendant Collins was the store manager from November 1993 to June 1995, and supervised plaintiff. While plaintiff worked at defendant company, the parties had a cordial, if not friendly, relationship. In December 1994, plaintiff complained to defendant manager about disparaging comments made about him by a fellow co-worker. The latter asked the employee about the incident, but he was told that it was all in plaintiff's head. Defendant apparently accepted this employee's explanation and did not conduct any further investigation. In January of 1995, plaintiff also overheard the defendant manager say to another employee, wishing that he would quit. Plaintiff was upset by these two statements. Plaintiff then brought suit against defendants alleging employment discrimination and related tort claims. Defendant manager filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiff’s cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. He contended that his conduct was not outrageous, and that he did not have the intent to cause plaintiff to suffer emotional distress. He further contended that these undisputed facts were insufficient to establish a prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress because they failed to show that defendant's conduct was outrageous or that he acted with the intent to cause emotional distress. Thus, he argued that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Issue:

Should the defendant manager’s motion for summary judgment regarding the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim be granted?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court, in granting the defendant manager’s summary judgment, held that proof of extreme and outrageous conduct was required to establish liability. The court also added that the plaintiff had the burden of showing that the defendant intended to cause or acted with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress. The court ruled that the defendant manager's conduct was not outrageous and that no reasonable jury could conclude that he intended to cause emotional distress or acted with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional harm.