Dawson v. Zayre Department Stores
1985 Pa. Super. LEXIS 9608, 499 A.2d 648, 346 Pa. Super. 357 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The single use of a racial epithet during a verbal dispute, without other aggravating circumstances, does not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to establish a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Facts:
- Roseann Dawson entered a Zayre’s Department Store to retrieve a lay-away item.
- A dispute arose between Dawson and a store employee concerning the lay-away ticket.
- During the course of the argument, the Zayre's employee called Dawson a racial slur.
- Dawson alleged she suffered severe emotional distress as a result, including wounded feelings, humiliation, and physical harm.
Procedural Posture:
- Roseann Dawson filed a complaint in trespass against Zayre's Department Store in the trial court, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Zayre’s filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, arguing the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court granted Zayre's preliminary objections and dismissed Dawson's complaint.
- Dawson (Appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
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 store employee's single use of a racial slur toward a customer during a verbal dispute, without any other aggravating factors, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Del Sole, J.
No. A single use of a racial slur during a dispute does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The law does not impose liability for 'mere insults, indignities... or other trivilaties,' and plaintiffs are expected to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language. The court reasoned that while the language used was offensive and deplorable, it was uttered during a disagreement and, without aggravating circumstances such as a continuous pattern of abuse, a special relationship (e.g., employer-employee), or knowledge of the victim's particular susceptibility, it fails to meet the high threshold for outrage required by the tort. The court distinguished this case from others where racial slurs were combined with factors like employment termination, threats of violence, or a pattern of harassment.
Dissenting - Olszewski, J.
Yes. A store employee's single use of a racial slur could constitute extreme and outrageous conduct, and the question should be decided by a jury. The dissent argues that the specific racial epithet used is not a mere insult but is 'ripe with hundreds of years of meaning' and its use is 'repugnant to contemporary social values.' He contends that a jury could reasonably find the conduct to be 'atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' The dissent views the majority's position as anachronistic, noting that the tort of IIED is evolving and that a business invitee, like Dawson, is owed a heightened standard of care, making the insult particularly egregious in this context.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a high bar for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress based on verbal abuse in Pennsylvania. It clarifies that a single, albeit deeply offensive, racial slur uttered during a spontaneous dispute is legally considered a 'mere insult' rather than 'extreme and outrageous conduct.' The ruling emphasizes the need for 'aggravating circumstances' to elevate verbal harassment to a tortious level, thereby limiting the scope of IIED claims and potentially insulating businesses from liability for isolated outbursts by employees. This creates a clear, though controversial, line that distinguishes actionable harassment from non-actionable insults in the context of customer-employee interactions.
