Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Gonzales
72 S.W.3d 398, 2002 WL 358517 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In the employment context, conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Behavior that is merely inappropriate, annoying, and crude, even if it constitutes sexual harassment, does not meet this high threshold.
Facts:
- In August 1994, David Gonzales began working at Dillard's Department Store under the supervision of Daniel Tellez.
- Shortly after starting, Tellez began subjecting Gonzales to unwelcome physical contact, including caressing his shoulder, rubbing his back, giving him 'bearhugs,' and pinching his midriff, and calling him 'his little pumpkin.'
- On numerous occasions, Tellez would come up behind Gonzales and press his penis against Gonzales's back.
- Tellez also made sexually suggestive comments, such as accusing Gonzales of flirting with a male customer and offering to 'stick my tongue in your mouth.'
- On May 20, 1995, Gonzales formally complained to store manager Marva Ferrero about Tellez's behavior.
- On June 12, 1995, after Ferrero had spoken to Tellez, Tellez again came up behind Gonzales, hugged him, and squeezed him.
- On August 7, 1995, Gonzales observed Tellez engaging in similar physical contact with another male employee, which triggered a severe emotional reaction.
- Immediately following this observation, Gonzales went into the stockroom and cut his wrists with a box cutter, after which he never returned to work at Dillard's.
Procedural Posture:
- David Gonzales sued his former employer, Dillard's Department Store, in a Texas trial court, alleging claims of sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Gonzales on both claims.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict, awarding Gonzales damages.
- Dillard's Department Store, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso Division.
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 supervisor's conduct, consisting of unwelcome physical contact such as hugging, rubbing, and pressing against an employee, coupled with sexually suggestive remarks and pet names, constitute 'extreme and outrageous' conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Susan Larsen
No. As a matter of law, the supervisor's behavior did not rise to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' conduct required to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To be actionable, workplace conduct must go beyond mere insults, indignities, or annoyances and be so atrocious as to be utterly intolerable in a civilized community. The court reasoned by comparing this case to the precedent in GTE Southwest v. Bruce, where actionable conduct involved a supervisor creating a 'den of terror' through constant vulgarity, physical threats, and extreme humiliation. Here, Tellez’s behavior was described as 'inappropriate, annoying, and crude,' but it lacked the elements of threats, obscenities, or severe intimidation present in Bruce. Because the conduct did not meet the very high threshold of being 'beyond all possible bounds of decency,' it could not legally support the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the extremely high bar for proving intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in the employment context in Texas. It clearly distinguishes conduct that is illegal sexual harassment from the more egregious conduct required for an IIED claim. By contrasting the facts with the 'den of terror' standard from GTE Southwest v. Bruce, the court provides a tangible benchmark, signaling that claims based on offensive touching and remarks alone are unlikely to succeed. This case is significant for illustrating that the same set of facts can satisfy the elements for one cause of action (hostile work environment) but fail to meet the higher, more demanding standard of another (IIED).
