Agis v. Howard Johnson Company
355 N.E.2d 315 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who, by extreme and outrageous conduct and without privilege, intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is liable for such emotional distress, even if no bodily harm results. A spouse may also bring a claim for loss of consortium arising from such purely emotional harm.
Facts:
- Debra Agis was employed as a waitress at a Howard Johnson Company restaurant managed by Roger Dionne.
- Dionne informed all waitresses at a meeting that someone was stealing from the restaurant.
- He announced that he did not know who was responsible for the stealing.
- Dionne stated that until the thief was identified, he would begin firing all the waitresses in alphabetical order.
- He then immediately fired Debra Agis, whose last name begins with 'A,' in front of her colleagues.
- As a result of this public dismissal, Debra Agis became greatly upset, cried, and sustained severe emotional distress.
Procedural Posture:
- Debra Agis and her husband, James Agis, sued the Howard Johnson Company and manager Roger Dionne in the Massachusetts Superior Court (trial court).
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing damages for emotional distress are not compensable without resulting physical injury.
- The Superior Court judge granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint.
- The plaintiffs, Debra and James Agis, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person have a legally cognizable cause of action for the intentional or reckless infliction of severe emotional distress in the absence of any resulting physical harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Quirico, J.
Yes, a cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of severe emotional distress exists even without resulting bodily harm. The court extends its prior holding in George v. Jordan Marsh Co., which recognized the tort when accompanied by physical injury. The court rejects the traditional argument that purely mental claims are too difficult to prove or are susceptible to fraud, stating that administrative difficulties should not justify denying relief for serious invasions of mental tranquility. It entrusts juries with the function of determining whether claims are valid, noting they are better positioned to assess whether conduct is outrageous than to resolve complex medical questions of causation between distress and physical injury. To prevent frivolous litigation, the court establishes a four-part test for the tort. The court also holds that a spouse has a cause of action for loss of consortium arising from such severe emotional distress, reasoning that the loss of companionship and affection can result from psychological injury just as it can from physical harm.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant evolution in Massachusetts tort law by officially recognizing the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) without the prerequisite of physical manifestation. By eliminating the physical harm requirement, the court acknowledged that severe emotional injury is a real and compensable harm in itself. This holding broadened the scope of liability for extreme and outrageous conduct, but the court simultaneously established a stringent four-part test to act as a gatekeeper, ensuring that the tort is confined to genuinely egregious situations and not 'mere bad manners.' The logical extension of loss of consortium claims to this purely emotional tort further underscores the court's view that psychological injuries can have consequences as damaging to a marital relationship as physical ones.
Unlock the full brief for Agis v. Howard Johnson Company