GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce
998 S.W.2d 605 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer can be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress when a supervisor engages in a continuous pattern of severe harassment, intimidation, and humiliation. Such a claim is not barred by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act if the injury results from repetitive mental trauma rather than a single, ascertainable event, and the supervisor's conduct must be evaluated as a whole to determine if it is extreme and outrageous.
Facts:
- Morris Shields, a supervisor for GTE Southwest, Inc. with a prior history of employee harassment complaints, was transferred to supervise Rhonda Bruce, Linda Davis, and Joyce Poelstra.
- Over a period of more than two years, from 1991 to 1993, Shields subjected the employees to a daily pattern of abusive behavior.
- Shields's conduct included constant use of vulgar profanity, yelling, screaming, and physically "charging" at the employees in a threatening manner, causing them to fear he would strike them.
- He also engaged in humiliating behavior, such as forcing Bruce to stand in his office while he stared at her for up to thirty minutes, requiring employees to perform janitorial duties like vacuuming, and making Bruce clean a carpet spot on her hands and knees while he stood over her yelling.
- Shields repeatedly threatened the employees' jobs, telling them they would be in the unemployment line or that he was sent to fire them.
- The employees complained to GTE about Shields's conduct, and GTE issued him a letter of reprimand, but the harassment did not completely stop.
- As a result of Shields's conduct, Bruce, Davis, and Poelstra all sought medical and psychological treatment for conditions including tension, anxiety, depression, and crying spells.
Procedural Posture:
- Rhonda Bruce, Linda Davis, and Joyce Poelstra sued GTE Southwest, Inc. in a Texas trial court for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the employees, awarding damages to each.
- The trial court rendered judgment for the employees based on the jury verdict.
- GTE Southwest, Inc., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- GTE Southwest, Inc. then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 ongoing pattern of verbal abuse, physical intimidation, and humiliation, when evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against an employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Abbott
Yes, a supervisor's ongoing pattern of abuse can constitute extreme and outrageous conduct. The court reasoned that while ordinary employment disputes are not actionable, the conduct here went far beyond that. The proper way to assess a claim of ongoing harassment is to evaluate the 'totality of the conduct' rather than viewing each incident in isolation. The severity and regularity of Shields's behavior—which included physical threats, constant humiliation, and verbal abuse—created a 'den of terror' that exceeded all bounds of decency. The court also held that the claim was not barred by the Workers' Compensation Act because the employees' injuries resulted from repetitive mental trauma, not a single, traceable event, which is not a compensable injury under the Act. Finally, GTE was liable because Shields, as a supervisor and vice-principal, was acting within the scope of his employment, making his actions the actions of the corporation.
Concurring - Justice Owen
Yes, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding, but for narrower reasons. Justice Owen argued that the majority's opinion was too broad. The conduct that was legally sufficient to be extreme and outrageous was the physical threats and sustained sexual harassment. However, most of the other conduct cataloged by the majority—such as cursing, threatening termination, and requiring demeaning tasks—would not, by itself, meet the rigorous standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if it occurred repeatedly. This conduct, while offensive, is not 'utterly intolerable in a civilized community' and risks broadening the tort to cover conduct that prior precedent has deemed insufficient.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in the Texas workplace. It establishes that a court must consider the 'totality of the circumstances' when the claim is based on a pattern of harassment, rather than requiring a single, shocking act. This 'death by a thousand cuts' approach makes it possible for employees to bring IIED claims based on prolonged, severe abuse that might not be actionable if each incident were viewed in isolation. The decision also solidifies the distinction between non-compensable repetitive mental trauma under the Workers' Compensation Act and injuries from a specific event, thereby defining a pathway for employees to sue employers directly for emotional harm in certain abusive environments.
