Ky. Fried Chicken Nat'l Mgmt. Co. v. Weathersby - 326 Md. 663, 607 A.2d 8 (1992)

Rule:

Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress is 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. A defendant's knowledge of a particular individual's emotional sensitivity can be an important factor in establishing liability. If a defendant meant to prey upon the known weaknesses of another human being, his or her behavior is more likely to warrant condemnation than if he or she had been unaware of the other's particular vulnerability. The tort clearly requires "intentional infliction" of emotional distress.

Facts:

Respondent former employee was demoted and subjected to misbehavior by the manager after a theft at the store she worked in. The employee was forced to undergo a polygraph test and work under a manager that she had previously trained. The employee suffered from a personality disorder that made her more susceptible to stress, however, the employer and manager did not know of her vulnerability. Respondent filed an action against petitioners, former employer and manager, that included a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a jury verdict in the employee's favor on that claim, the trial judge entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court of Special Appeals reversed. The employer and manager appealed.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the employer be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the judgment. In so doing, the court held that there was no evidence that the employer knew that the employee's psychological makeup was other than that of any competent and industrious employee, and while the employer-employee relationship was a factor to be considered in the analysis, there was no managerial misbehavior of the degree necessary for a successful claim under a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court noted that had the employer known of the employee's vulnerability, the result might have been different.