Gomez v. Hug
1982 Kan. App. LEXIS 198, 7 Kan. App. 2d 603, 645 P.2d 916 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court cannot grant summary judgment on claims of assault or intentional infliction of emotional distress when the evidence, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, suggests that a defendant's words coupled with threatening actions could cause reasonable apprehension of bodily harm, or that extreme and outrageous conduct caused severe emotional distress, especially where there is a power imbalance between the parties.
Facts:
- On April 21, 1978, Silvino Gomez, a supervisor at the Shawnee County fairgrounds, and his immediate supervisor, Robert Kanatzer, were preparing an area for a horse show when they learned of a water line break.
- Gomez and Kanatzer then proceeded to the fairgrounds administrator’s office to contact a piping contractor.
- Upon their arrival, Roland Hug, a member of the Board of County Commissioners of Shawnee County, was already in the office with a companion, Robert Corbett.
- Hug repeatedly asked Kanatzer, “What is that fucking spic doing in the office?” referring to Gomez, and then ordered Gomez to approach him, again using the racial slur.
- When Gomez inquired about the meaning of the slur, Hug called him a “fucking Mexican greaser,” “nothing but a pile of shit,” shook his fist in Gomez’s face, pounded on the desk, and dared Gomez to “do something about it” during a tirade that lasted between five and fifteen minutes.
- Gomez testified that he was terrified by Hug’s actions and words, fearing for his safety, his job, and his family.
- Kanatzer escorted an upset Gomez out of the office and took him home after the exchange.
- Following the incident, Gomez began having serious medical problems, sought treatment from various doctors (including a neurologist and psychiatrist who related his problems to the incident), was hospitalized for two weeks, and eventually resigned his job with the county in November 1979 due to his health.
Procedural Posture:
- Silvino Gomez filed a lawsuit in the district court against Roland Hug and the Board of County Commissioners of Shawnee County, alleging assault, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The defendants, Roland Hug and the Board of County Commissioners, moved for summary judgment.
- The district court sustained the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and entered judgment in their favor.
- Gomez appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Kansas.
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 court err in granting summary judgment on claims of assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress when an employer uses severe racial slurs, threatening gestures, and prolonged verbal abuse against an employee, causing fear and subsequent medical problems?
Opinions:
Majority - Wahl, J.
Yes, the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the claims of assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court determined that a jury could reasonably find that Roland Hug's actions constituted an assault because words, when coupled with other acts and circumstances—such as fist-shaking, pounding a desk, shouting, and the power dynamic of Hug being Gomez's employer—could create immediate apprehension of bodily harm, even without physical contact. The prolonged nature and severity of the verbal abuse, combined with the power imbalance, also presented a submissible case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, the court reiterated that conduct must be extreme and outrageous, going beyond mere insults, and that the relationship between the parties is a significant factor. The court affirmed summary judgment on the defamation claim because Hug's words, while objectionable, were not slander per se and there was no evidence of special damages to Gomez's reputation from third parties. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, holding that verbal harassment alone is insufficient and new arguments about property rights not raised at trial could not be considered on appeal. Finally, the court affirmed summary judgment for the Board of County Commissioners, concluding that respondeat superior did not apply as county commissioners are elected officials whose duties are fixed by statute, and Hug's personal acts exceeding his authority were not acts of the county.
Concurring - Rees, J.
Justice Rees concurred with the majority's result, agreeing that the claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress should be remanded for jury consideration, while the claims for slander, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and liability of the Board of County Commissioners were properly dismissed. Rees emphasized a slightly different approach to the facts, noting that they should be viewed as sufficient to potentially support a finding for the plaintiff, rather than as an established factual exposition. For assault, Rees clarified that the issue is whether Hug intended to threaten bodily harm and whether Gomez was in immediate apprehension of it, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to decide both. For intentional infliction of emotional distress, Rees highlighted the two threshold determinations for the court: whether the conduct was extreme and outrageous enough to permit recovery, and whether the emotional distress was sufficiently severe. Rees concluded that the discovery record presented enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find both thresholds met, making it a submissible case for the jury, but cautioned that it might still be found insufficient at trial.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the standards for summary judgment in assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims in Kansas, particularly emphasizing the context of the parties' relationship. It established that racial slurs and threatening behavior by a person in authority toward a subordinate can be deemed "extreme and outrageous" enough to warrant a jury trial for IIED. The decision underscored that "words alone" are insufficient for assault, but threatening words coupled with physical gestures and a power imbalance can create a genuine issue of material fact. This ruling limits the ability of courts to dismiss such claims pre-trial, promoting judicial intervention against severe workplace harassment and protecting individuals from emotional and physical harm caused by abusive conduct, especially when power dynamics are present.
