Ghodrati v. Stearnes
723 S.E.2d 721, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 777, 314 Ga. App. 321 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was both extreme and outrageous, and that the resulting emotional harm was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
Facts:
- Vahid Ghodrati worked as an auto technician at Volvo Service Center, Inc. (VSC) from November 2007 until January 2009.
- During his employment, Ghodrati was subjected to verbal abuse of a sexual and discriminatory manner by co-workers Jeremiah Stearnes and Truman Stearnes.
- Jeremiah and Truman Stearnes addressed Ghodrati with discriminatory and racist slurs and made lewd and inappropriate sexual comments about him.
- The co-workers also posted inappropriate signs about Ghodrati on the employee restroom door and in the middle of the shop.
- Ghodrati reported feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed in front of customers, describing his workplace as a 'pretty uncomfortable and hostile work environment'.
- Ghodrati claimed these actions caused him to have trouble sleeping, nightmares, anxiety attacks, and to enter 'panic mode' when thinking of VSC.
- Ghodrati was fired from VSC in January 2009.
Procedural Posture:
- Vahid Ghodrati worked at Volvo Service Center, Inc. (VSC) from November 2007 until January 2009.
- Ghodrati was fired from VSC in January 2009.
- Ghodrati filed a lawsuit in a trial court against his former employer, VSC, and former co-workers, Truman Stearnes and Jeremiah Stearnes, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, punitive damages, and costs.
- The defendants (VSC, Truman Stearnes, and Jeremiah Stearnes) filed a counterclaim for attorney fees and expenses of litigation.
- Ghodrati voluntarily dismissed his slander cause of action prior to the summary judgment hearing.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
- After oral argument, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- Ghodrati, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
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 plaintiff present sufficient evidence of 'extreme and outrageous' conduct and 'severe' emotional harm to withstand a motion for summary judgment on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, when subjected to racist/derogatory slurs, inappropriate sexual comments, and offensive signs in the workplace, but does not seek professional counseling until after filing a lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Mikell, Presiding Judge
No, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment because Ghodrati failed to present evidence that he suffered 'severe' emotional distress or that the co-workers' conduct was 'extreme and outrageous' enough to be actionable. The court reiterated the four elements required for intentional infliction of emotional distress: (1) intentional or reckless conduct; (2) extreme and outrageous conduct; (3) a causal connection; and (4) severe emotional harm. The court determined that while the conduct of Jeremiah and Truman Stearnes (racist/derogatory names, inappropriate sexual comments, and offensive signs) was 'rude and tasteless,' it was not 'extreme and outrageous' as a matter of law. Precedent indicates that 'outrageous conduct' does not include 'mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other vicissitudes of daily living,' and that liability only arises when conduct is 'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.' Regarding the severity of emotional distress, the court noted Ghodrati endured the stress throughout his employment, did not seek counseling until long after leaving VSC and filing the lawsuit, and had not produced any record of a counselor’s diagnosis. Therefore, his symptoms, such as anxiety, sleeplessness, and embarrassment, did not meet the standard of distress 'so severe that a reasonable person could not endure it.' Dillard and Boggs, JJ., concurred.
Analysis:
This case establishes a high threshold for proving intentional infliction of emotional distress, emphasizing that both the conduct must be 'extreme and outrageous' and the resulting emotional harm 'severe' to be legally actionable. It clarifies that even offensive workplace behavior, including racist and sexual harassment, may not meet the 'extreme and outrageous' standard if it falls short of being 'utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' The ruling also highlights the importance of timely seeking and documenting professional help for emotional distress, suggesting that delays or lack of professional diagnosis can undermine a claim of 'severe' emotional harm. This case will likely impact future claims by setting a rigorous standard for the nature of the conduct and the evidentiary requirements for emotional injury.
