Michael D. Van Stan v. Fancy Colours & Company, Cross-Appellee
7 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 426, 125 F.3d 563, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 24422 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Illinois law, an employer's conduct, even if insensitive or based on a false pretext, does not rise to the level of "extreme and outrageous" for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress unless it is so atrocious and intolerable that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency. An employer's knowledge of an employee's particular susceptibility to emotional distress is a factor to consider but does not change the objective nature of this standard.
Facts:
- In 1986, Michael D. Van Stan began working for Fancy Colours & Company and later became the warehouse manager.
- In 1991, Van Stan was diagnosed with a bipolar disorder and informed Michael Feltes, Fancy Colours’ Executive Vice President, of his diagnosis.
- In early 1994, Van Stan's immediate supervisor, A1 Walters, asserted that Van Stan's job performance had become problematic, citing staff complaints and an incident where Van Stan allegedly quit after a shouting match.
- Van Stan disputed the performance issues, testifying that he had received nothing but praise during his employment.
- Shortly before his termination, Van Stan provided a doctor's note to his employer recommending that his workload be reduced to 50 hours per week.
- In May 1994, while Van Stan was on a scheduled vacation, Walters telephoned him at home to inform him that his employment was terminated.
- When Van Stan asked for a reason, Walters stated it was for 'low productivity' and poor people management skills.
- Following the termination, Fancy Colours provided Van Stan with a favorable letter of recommendation, which helped him secure a new job.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael D. Van Stan sued his former employer, Fancy Colours & Company, in federal district court.
- The complaint included two claims: violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) under Illinois law.
- A jury rendered a verdict in favor of Fancy Colours on the ADA claim.
- The jury found in favor of Van Stan on the IIED claim, awarding him $150,000 in damages.
- After the trial, Van Stan filed a motion for a new trial on his ADA claim, and Fancy Colours filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law on the IIED claim.
- The district court denied both parties' post-trial motions.
- Fancy Colours appealed the district court's denial of its motion on the IIED claim, and Van Stan cross-appealed the denial of his motion on the ADA claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 an employer's conduct of terminating an employee with a known bipolar disorder by telephoning him at home during his vacation and providing a false reason for the termination constitute 'extreme and outrageous' conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois law?
Opinions:
Majority - Harlington Wood, Jr.
No, the employer's conduct did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. To be actionable under Illinois law, conduct must be so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. In the employment context, courts have set a very high bar, recognizing that personality conflicts and job performance critiques are unavoidable aspects of employment. The court reasoned that firing Van Stan on vacation and providing a false pretext, while inappropriate, was not akin to truly egregious cases involving threats of violence or coercion into illegal acts. Even considering the employer's knowledge of Van Stan's bipolar disorder, the conduct does not meet the objective standard of outrageousness that would cause an average community member to exclaim 'Outrageous!'
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the high threshold for plaintiffs to succeed on claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress in the employment context under Illinois law. It clarifies that conduct must be truly egregious, not merely insensitive or unprofessional, to be legally actionable. The ruling establishes that an employer's awareness of an employee's particular vulnerability to emotional distress does not convert otherwise non-actionable conduct into 'extreme and outrageous' behavior, as the standard remains objective. This precedent narrows the path for recovery for employees terminated in an upsetting manner, requiring them to show conduct far more severe than what occurred in this case.
