Elaine J. Subbe-Hirt v. Robert Baccigalupi Prudential Insurance Company
94 F.3d 111 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's conduct constitutes an "intentional wrong" falling outside the exclusive remedy of the New Jersey Worker's Compensation Act if the employer acted with a deliberate intent to injure. Such intent can be proven either by showing a subjective desire to cause harm or by demonstrating that the resulting injury was a substantial certainty, and a sustained campaign of targeted psychological abuse can be sufficiently outrageous to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Facts:
- Elaine Subbe-Hirt was an insurance salesperson at Prudential Insurance Company under the supervision of District Manager Robert Baccigalupi.
- Baccigalupi developed and implemented a management tactic he called "root canal," which involved intense verbal attacks designed to intimidate and force disfavored employees to quit.
- Baccigalupi frequently subjected Subbe-Hirt to these sessions, used derogatory and sexist language, referred to women as "cunts," threatened to "trim her bush," and repeatedly asked for her resignation.
- Subbe-Hirt presented Baccigalupi with a letter from her doctor stating she suffered from a tension syndrome and should not be subjected to undue stress.
- Baccigalupi refused to place the doctor's letter in her personnel file, stating he "didn't see that letter" and continued his conduct.
- Other managers testified that Baccigalupi specifically intended to target Subbe-Hirt, stating "I'm going to get her."
- Following a meeting with Baccigalupi, Subbe-Hirt suffered a stress-induced blackout while driving, resulting in a serious car accident and hospitalization.
- Subbe-Hirt was subsequently diagnosed by her psychiatrist with post-traumatic stress disorder, rendering her totally disabled.
Procedural Posture:
- Elaine Subbe-Hirt sued her former employer, Prudential Insurance Company, and her former supervisor, Robert Baccigalupi, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on Subbe-Hirt's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the claim was barred by the exclusivity provision of the New Jersey Worker’s Compensation Act and that the alleged conduct was not sufficiently outrageous.
- Subbe-Hirt, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 sustained campaign of targeted verbal abuse, sexist insults, and intimidation, conducted with knowledge of an employee's particular susceptibility to stress, meet the standard for an "intentional wrong" sufficient to overcome the exclusivity bar of the New Jersey Worker's Compensation Act and state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Nygaard, Circuit Judge
Yes. A supervisor's sustained campaign of targeted verbal abuse, conducted with knowledge of an employee's susceptibility to stress, can meet the standard for an 'intentional wrong' under the Worker's Compensation Act and state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court erred by focusing only on the 'substantial certainty' prong of the test for an intentional wrong, ignoring the alternative prong of a 'subjective desire to injure.' The record contains ample evidence of Baccigalupi's subjective intent to harm Subbe-Hirt, such as his statement, 'I'm going to get her.' Furthermore, Baccigalupi's conduct—including the 'root canal' tactic, sexist slurs, and constant threats—was sufficiently outrageous to support an IIED claim, especially because he proceeded with the harassment after being notified of Subbe-Hirt's particular vulnerability to stress, which is a classic form of outrageous conduct under the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
Dissenting - Cowen, Circuit Judge
No. The supervisor's conduct, while offensive, does not meet the high threshold required for either the 'intentional wrong' exception to the Worker's Compensation Act or a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The alleged conduct, consisting solely of harsh words related to work performance, falls within the sometimes-crude realities of the workplace and does not rise to the 'virtual certainty' of harm required by New Jersey law to bypass the WCA. Similarly, the conduct was not 'so outrageous in character... as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,' as required for an IIED claim. The judiciary should not act as a 'super-Emily Post of the workplace' by censoring an employer's dialogue, however uncouth.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'intentional wrong' exception to the New Jersey Worker’s Compensation Act's exclusivity provision, affirming that a plaintiff can satisfy the standard by showing a subjective desire to injure, not just substantial certainty of injury. It establishes that a pattern of severe, targeted verbal and psychological harassment in the workplace can constitute 'outrageous' conduct sufficient for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The ruling potentially broadens the ability of employees to sue for emotional harm caused by extreme managerial misconduct, shifting the analysis from whether the conduct is a normal part of employment to whether the employer possessed a deliberate intent to harm.
Unlock the full brief for Elaine J. Subbe-Hirt v. Robert Baccigalupi Prudential Insurance Company