Hollomon v. Keadle
326 Ark. 168, 931 S.W.2d 413, 12 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 194 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an employment context, a claim for the tort of outrage requires not only that the employer's conduct was extreme and outrageous but also that the employer had knowledge of the employee's peculiar susceptibility to emotional distress due to a physical or mental condition.
Facts:
- Mary Hollomon worked as an employee for Dr. W. R. Keadle for approximately two years.
- During her employment, Keadle frequently cursed at Hollomon, called her offensive names such as “slut” and “whore,” and made degrading remarks about women.
- Keadle told Hollomon stories about his connections with the mob and his ability to have people “taken care of,” which Hollomon perceived as threats.
- Keadle also told Hollomon he carried a gun and had recently pulled it on a patient.
- Hollomon claimed Keadle's conduct caused her stomach problems, loss of sleep, anxiety attacks, and loss of self-esteem.
- Hollomon stated she did not resign earlier due to fear and her financial situation as a single parent, of which Keadle was aware.
- After two years and three months, Hollomon voluntarily resigned from her position.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Hollomon filed a lawsuit against Dr. W. R. Keadle in an Arkansas trial court for the tort of outrage.
- Keadle filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the alleged facts did not constitute a valid legal claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Keadle.
- Hollomon, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Arkansas Supreme Court; Keadle is the appellee.
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 conduct of repeated verbal abuse, insults, and veiled threats constitute the tort of outrage when the employee has not demonstrated that the employer had knowledge of the employee's peculiar susceptibility to emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Andree Layton Roaf, Justice
No. An employer's conduct of repeated verbal abuse and insults does not constitute the tort of outrage unless the employee shows the employer was aware of the employee's peculiar susceptibility to emotional distress. The court takes a strict approach to outrage claims in the employment context, recognizing that employers must be given considerable latitude in dealing with employees. While Keadle's alleged behavior was reprehensible, Hollomon failed to establish the critical element required by precedent like Tandy Corp. v. Bone: that Keadle had notice of a particular mental or physical condition that made Hollomon especially vulnerable. Hollomon's status as a single parent or her general complaints of stomach upset did not rise to the level of putting Keadle on notice of a peculiar susceptibility. Therefore, her claim fails as a matter of law because abrasive profanity and insults alone are insufficient to support a cause of action for outrage.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the high threshold for plaintiffs to succeed on claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the employer-employee context. By emphasizing the requirement that the employer must have knowledge of an employee's peculiar susceptibility to distress, the court narrows the scope of actionable conduct. This precedent makes it very difficult for employees to sue for verbal abuse or a hostile work environment under this tort theory, unless they can prove the employer knowingly exploited a specific, pre-existing vulnerability. The ruling gives employers considerable protection from liability for what might otherwise be considered outrageous workplace behavior.
Unlock the full brief for Hollomon v. Keadle