Groff v. SOUTHWEST BEVERAGE CO., INC.
28 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 662, 997 So. 2d 782, 8 La.App. 3 Cir. 625 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A supervisor's single instance of yelling, using profanity, and pounding on a desk during a disciplinary meeting does not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, nor does it create a reasonable apprehension of imminent battery to support a claim for assault.
Facts:
- Robert Groff worked for Southwest Beverage Co., Inc. and suffered from medically diagnosed emotional stress-related problems for which he took medication.
- Groff had previously informed at least one of his supervisors, Robert Newlan, about his emotional problems on at least two occasions, months before the incident in question.
- During a company safety meeting on March 16, 2004, Groff publicly challenged some facts presented by Southwest's Operations Manager.
- Following the meeting, Groff's supervisor, George Ford, asked Groff and three other supervisors to remain in the room.
- While separated from Groff by a desk, Ford began yelling at Groff, using numerous profanities and repeatedly hitting the desk with his hand.
- Ford did not make any verbal threats of physical harm, did not have a weapon, and did not move toward Groff in a threatening manner.
- A few days after the incident, Groff apologized to Ford, hugged him, and returned to his job.
- Approximately two months later, Groff quit his job at Southwest Beverage.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Groff filed suit against Southwest Beverage Co., Inc. and George Ford in a Louisiana trial court.
- Groff alleged claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, hostile work environment, defamation, and invasion of privacy.
- The defendants, Southwest Beverage and Ford, moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted the summary judgment motion, dismissing all of Groff's claims.
- Groff, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 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 single, profanity-filled outburst accompanied by desk pounding during a disciplinary action constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, invasion of privacy, or defamation?
Opinions:
Majority - Thibodeaux, C.J.
No. A single outburst of profanity coupled with desk pounding during a disciplinary action, while unprofessional, does not constitute conduct so extreme and outrageous as to be legally actionable as intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, invasion of privacy, or defamation. For intentional infliction of emotional distress, the conduct did not meet the high threshold of being 'beyond all possible bounds of decency' and 'utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' Citing White v. Monsanto, the court noted that workplace IIED claims are typically limited to a 'pattern of deliberate, repeated harassment over a period of time,' not a single incident, especially one occurring within the context of a disciplinary action. For the assault claim, Groff failed to show his apprehension of a battery was reasonable; there were no verbal threats of physical harm, a desk separated the parties, others were present, and Groff himself admitted the pounding was for emphasis. For the invasion of privacy and defamation claims, Groff failed to produce evidence of any false statements being publicized, as profanities are not statements of fact that can be true or false.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary bar for employees bringing tort claims against employers for workplace conflicts in Louisiana. It clarifies that a single incident of harsh, unprofessional verbal conduct by a supervisor, even when directed at an employee with known emotional sensitivities, is generally insufficient to meet the 'extreme and outrageous' standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The ruling distinguishes between mere offensive behavior and legally tortious conduct, thereby protecting employers from liability for isolated managerial outbursts. The case serves as a strong precedent that, absent a pattern of harassment or a credible threat of physical violence, disciplinary actions involving yelling and profanity will likely not be actionable in court.
