Graham v. Guilderland Central School District
681 N.Y.S.2d 831, 256 A.D.2d 863, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13529 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A teacher's use of a racial slur directed at a student during a classroom discussion on prejudice does not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient for an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim when the context indicates a pedagogical, rather than malicious, purpose.
Facts:
- Elizabeth Graham was a student in an English class taught by John Birchler at Guilderland Central High School.
- Graham was the only African-American student in the classroom.
- During a class discussion about a 'Homosexual Awareness Assembly,' another student asked, 'Why not call them faggots? That’s what they are!'
- In response, Birchler pointed to Graham and stated, 'Why not call Liz a ‘nigger’ because that’s what she is?'
- Birchler then directly addressed Graham, saying, 'Liz, why not tell us what it feels like to be called a ‘nigger’?'
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth Graham and her parents (plaintiffs) commenced an action in the New York Supreme Court, Albany County (a trial court), against the Guilderland Central School District and teacher John Birchler (defendants).
- The complaint included a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Supreme Court (trial court) granted defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
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 teacher's use of a racial slur, directed at the only African-American student in the class during a discussion about prejudice, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Yesawich Jr., J.
No. The teacher's conduct, while offensive, does not rise to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' necessary to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To be actionable, conduct must 'transcend all bounds of decency' and be 'utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' The court reasoned that prior cases have established that the use of racial aspersions is not, by itself, sufficiently egregious. Crucially, the context here was a classroom discussion where the teacher's remarks, 'considered in their entirety, were plainly intended to convey his strong disapproval of such epithets, by exemplifying — perhaps, too effectively — the pain they can cause.' Given this pedagogical objective in a setting where open exchange of ideas is encouraged, the conduct cannot be legally characterized as 'utterly reprehensible.'
Dissenting - Cardona, P. J.
Yes. The plaintiff's complaint sets forth sufficient allegations to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the case should not be dismissed as a matter of law. The dissenting opinion argues that the factual circumstances are more compelling than in prior cases. The key factors include that the derogatory remarks were targeted at the only African-American female in the class, who was an adolescent, not an adult. Furthermore, the teacher exacerbated the conduct by calling for a response from the student. The dissent contends that while open exchange of ideas is important, that goal 'must yield to the protection of one’s emotional well-being,' and under these unique circumstances, the conduct could be considered extreme and outrageous.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the extremely high threshold for pleading a successful claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in New York. It establishes that a defendant's subjective intent and the surrounding context, particularly a pedagogical one, can legally excuse conduct that is otherwise socially reprehensible. The ruling narrows the scope of what is considered 'extreme and outrageous,' suggesting that even the use of a powerful racial slur directed at a vulnerable minor in a position of power imbalance (teacher-student) may not be actionable if a non-malicious motive can be plausibly argued. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on IIED claims where the defendant's conduct occurs within an educational or expressive context.
Unlock the full brief for Graham v. Guilderland Central School District