Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.
468 P.2d 216, 2 Cal. 3d 493 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conduct is considered extreme and outrageous, supporting a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, when an employer in a position of authority intentionally humiliates an employee using racial slurs and terminates their employment without just cause.
Facts:
- Manuel D. Alcorn, a Black man, was employed by Anbro Engineering, Inc. as a truck driver and also served as the shop steward for the Teamster's Union.
- Alcorn informed his foreman and field superintendent, Palmer, that he had advised a non-teamster employee against driving a specific truck, in line with his duties as shop steward.
- Immediately after Alcorn spoke, Palmer shouted at him using racial slurs, stated he was 'getting rid of all the 'niggers'', and summarily fired him.
- Palmer ordered Alcorn to deliver a piece of equipment to another job site and then get his final paycheck.
- After the incident, Alcorn reported it to Thomas Anderson, Jr., the company secretary, who ratified and confirmed Palmer's actions, including Alcorn's discharge.
- As a direct result of these events, Alcorn suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and physical distress, including shock, nausea, and insomnia, rendering him unable to work for several weeks.
Procedural Posture:
- Manuel D. Alcorn (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Anbro Engineering, Inc., and its agents (defendants) in California superior court, the trial court of first instance.
- The defendants filed a demurrer to the plaintiff's third amended complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend and entered an order of dismissal.
- Alcorn (appellant) appealed the order of dismissal to the Supreme Court of California.
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 an employer's conduct, which includes shouting racial epithets at an employee while terminating his employment without provocation, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, J.
Yes. An employer's intentional use of racial insults to humiliate an employee while terminating employment constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court reasoned that while mere insults may not be actionable, the aggravated circumstances in this case—the employer-employee power dynamic, the known susceptibility of the plaintiff to racial insults, and the outrageous nature of the conduct—could lead a reasonable jury to find the defendants' actions were 'beyond all possible bounds of decency.' The plaintiff's status as an employee entitles him to a greater degree of protection from such outrage than a stranger. The court also affirmed that recovery is possible for emotional distress alone, without consequent physical injuries, when there is an extreme and outrageous intentional invasion of one's mental and emotional tranquility.
Analysis:
This case solidified the application of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) within the employment context, particularly for cases involving discriminatory harassment. It established that racial slurs from a supervisor are not mere insults but can be deemed 'extreme and outrageous' conduct, thereby lowering the bar for plaintiffs to bring such claims. The decision emphasizes that a defendant's position of authority and a plaintiff's particular susceptibility are critical factors in evaluating an IIED claim, providing a clear framework for future workplace harassment and discrimination cases.
Unlock the full brief for Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.