Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc.
54 Or. App. 480, 635 P.2d 657, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 3564 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer-employee relationship is a special relationship that gives rise to liability for outrageous conduct if the employer's actions are reckless and exceed the bounds of social toleration. A third party without such a relationship may be liable if their conduct is intentionally aimed at causing emotional distress and is socially intolerable.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a K-Mart checker, was ringing up purchases for a customer, Mrs. Golden.
- Golden disputed the price of an item and left the checkout lane to investigate, allegedly leaving four five-dollar bills on the counter.
- Upon returning, Golden loudly accused the plaintiff of stealing the money, causing a commotion.
- A K-Mart manager searched the plaintiff's jacket pockets and had her cash register till counted, both of which revealed no evidence of theft.
- Despite the register balancing perfectly, Golden persisted in her accusation.
- The manager then told the plaintiff to accompany a female assistant manager to the women's public restroom to be strip-searched.
- Golden followed and watched as the plaintiff was compelled to disrobe down to her underwear.
- Later that evening, after arriving home, Golden counted the money in her purse and discovered she had not lost any money.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a tort action against her former employer, K-Mart, and a customer, Mrs. Golden, in an Oregon trial court.
- Both defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's case.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the final judgments to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
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 and a customer's conduct, including coercing an employee into a strip search based on an unsubstantiated accusation of theft, constitute outrageous conduct sufficient to present a question for a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Buttler, P. J.
Yes. A jury could reasonably find that the conduct of both the employer, K-Mart, and the customer, Golden, was sufficiently outrageous to be actionable. Regarding K-Mart, the court established that the employer-employee relationship is a special relationship characterized by the employer's significant authority. Due to this power imbalance, an employer can be liable for conduct that is reckless of its predictable emotional effects and exceeds the bounds of social toleration, even if not deliberately aimed at causing distress. A jury could find that the manager, in an effort to placate an unreasonable customer, put the plaintiff through a degrading and humiliating strip search despite evidence of her innocence, which constitutes reckless and socially intolerable conduct. Regarding Golden, although no special relationship existed, a jury could find her actions were deliberately aimed at causing emotional distress. Her persistent accusations after the register balanced, her eager participation in the strip search, and her continued harassment were not merely attempts to recover money but could be viewed as a deliberate campaign to humiliate and coerce the plaintiff, which is beyond the bounds of social toleration.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing the employer-employee relationship as a 'special relationship' within the tort of outrageous conduct in Oregon. This lowers the standard of intent required for an employer's liability from intentional to reckless, providing greater protection for employees against abusive or humiliating treatment. The case distinguishes the standard for liability based on the relationship between the parties, holding those in positions of power to a higher duty of care regarding the emotional well-being of their subordinates. It reinforces the principle that conduct can be actionable if it transforms a legitimate objective, such as resolving a theft claim, into an exercise in degradation and humiliation.
Unlock the full brief for Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc.