Hall v. May Department Stores Co.
1981 Ore. LEXIS 1174, 292 Or. 131, 637 P.2d 126 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's conduct during an employee interrogation can constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress if it is an extraordinary transgression of contemporary standards of civilized conduct, such as using threats and false claims of proof as a deliberate tactic to frighten an employee into a confession. However, when the tortious conduct consists solely of speech, punitive damages are not recoverable under the Oregon Constitution; the remedy is limited to compensation for the actual injury.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a 19-year-old cosmetics saleswoman at a Meier & Frank department store, was considered a competent and promising employee.
- Defendant George Rummell, the store's director of security, used a chart system to track cash register shortages and identify employees who worked on days when shortages occurred.
- Rummell summoned the plaintiff to his office for questioning based on one of these charts indicating shortages at her register.
- During the interrogation, Rummell accused the plaintiff of stealing, yelled at her, pounded his desk, and threatened her with arrest and a jail sentence.
- Rummell claimed to have "proof" of her guilt, pointing to the charts on his desk, despite knowing the charts were not conclusive evidence of theft.
- Rummell later testified that he did not believe the plaintiff was guilty at the time and that his interrogation method was a tactic he often used to obtain confessions.
- Following the interrogation, plaintiff's work assignments were changed for the worse, her sales and income declined, and she eventually quit her job due to the stressful environment.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Meier & Frank Co. and George Rummell in an Oregon circuit court (trial court) for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- A jury returned a verdict for the defendants on the defamation claim but found for the plaintiff on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
- The defendants moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
- The circuit court granted the defendants' motion for JNOV, setting aside the jury's verdict for the plaintiff.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the JNOV to the Oregon Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment for the defendants without opinion.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for review.
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 an employer's interrogation of an employee, which includes accusations of theft, threats of arrest, and false claims of having definitive proof, constitute an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Linde, J.
Yes. An employer's method of interrogation can constitute an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. The court reasoned that the employer-employee relationship imposes a greater obligation on the employer to refrain from abusive behavior than in an arm's-length encounter between strangers. While an employer has a right to investigate suspected wrongdoing, a jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that Rummell's actions were not merely an unpleasant confrontation but an intentional, cold-blooded tactic of browbeating an employee into a confession using scanty evidence, threats, and false claims of proof. Such a method, deliberately designed to inflict severe emotional distress, could be found by a jury to be beyond the outer bounds of socially tolerable employer practices. However, the court held that punitive damages were not permissible because the tortious conduct consisted entirely of speech. Citing Wheeler v. Green, it reasoned that the Oregon Constitution limits recovery for the "abuse" of the right of free expression to compensatory damages for the injury done, not punishment.
Dissenting - Denecke, C. J.
No. The defendant's conduct was not an extraordinary transgression of socially tolerable behavior as a matter of law. The dissent argued that the tort of "outrageous conduct" is too amorphous and that courts should be cautious in submitting such cases to a jury. The employer's objective—investigating employee theft—was legitimate and commendable. The conduct, while potentially unpleasant, did not rise to the level of outrageousness required for the tort, especially since other remedies like defamation and false imprisonment exist to address employer misconduct. Submitting this case to the jury risks an unwarranted expansion of employer liability for pursuing legitimate business objectives.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Lent, J.
Yes. The interrogation was sufficient to present a jury question on the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The partial dissent agreed with the majority that the evidence of Rummell's browbeating tactics was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for compensatory damages. However, it strongly disagreed with the majority's conclusion that punitive damages were unavailable. The dissent argued that the tort did not rest solely on Rummell's speech during the interrogation but also on the defendants' subsequent course of conduct, which included surveillance, ostracism, and detrimental changes to the plaintiff's work assignments. Because this additional conduct was not speech, the constitutional limitations from Wheeler v. Green should not apply, and the jury's award of punitive damages should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) within the employer-employee relationship, recognizing that the inherent power imbalance imposes a higher duty on employers to avoid abusive conduct. It establishes that the key factor in determining outrageousness is not just the act of investigation but the employer's method and intent; specifically, whether distress was inflicted intentionally as a tactic rather than as an incidental byproduct of a legitimate confrontation. The decision also significantly extends Oregon's constitutional prohibition on punitive damages for torts arising from speech, moving the principle beyond defamation to encompass IIED claims based solely on verbal conduct. This creates a critical distinction for future cases between IIED claims based on speech versus those based on other forms of conduct.
