Mindy Howerton v. Harbin Clinic
776 S.E.2d 288, 333 Ga. App. 191 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a tortious interference with an employment contract claim, a defendant must be a 'stranger to the contract,' meaning they lack a direct economic interest in the specific contract and authority to terminate the employee. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct so extreme and outrageous as to be utterly intolerable in a civilized community, causing severe emotional distress requiring professional treatment.
Facts:
- From July 2006 to June 2011, Kenneth C. Sands, M. D., was employed as an orthopedic surgeon by Harbin Clinic, LLC, which had an agreement allowing its physicians surgical privileges at Floyd Medical Center (FMC), where FMC staff worked in the operating rooms.
- From April 2008 to October 2012, Mindy Howerton was employed as a surgical technician at FMC and worked with Dr. Sands from late 2008 until approximately February 2011.
- Dr. Sands subjected Howerton to a pattern of sexually harassing behavior, including inappropriate comments about her sex life and body, groping her breasts, exposing his pubic hair and penis, and propositioning her for an affair, with the harassment escalating around December 2010.
- In January 2011, Howerton informed Lee Ford, FMC's assistant director, about Dr. Sands's harassing conduct while discussing a potential transfer to a permanent second shift position.
- Shortly after midnight on February 17, 2011, Dr. Sands texted Howerton, and her husband, Scott Howerton, texted Dr. Sands, stating that Howerton had recorded some of Dr. Sands's inappropriate messages and a conversation where he intimated wanting an affair.
- Later that morning, Dr. Sands contacted Gia Pyles (Howerton's direct supervisor at FMC) and other operating room staff, reporting that Howerton was recording conversations in the operating room or accusing him of harassment.
- FMC management subsequently questioned Howerton about Dr. Sands's allegations, criticized her job skills for the first time, and indicated that her previously promised transfer to the second shift was now uncertain.
- FMC then transferred Howerton to outpatient surgeries to separate her from Dr. Sands, which led to a significant reduction in her work hours and severe financial distress, ultimately resulting in the end of her employment in October 2012.
Procedural Posture:
- Mindy Howerton filed suit in Floyd County Superior Court against Harbin Clinic, LLC and Kenneth C. Sands, M. D., asserting claims for tortious interference with employment contract, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against both, and a claim for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against Harbin Clinic.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Harbin Clinic on all claims asserted against it.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Sands on all of Howerton’s claims against him, except for assault and battery.
- Howerton appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment against her and in favor of Sands on her tortious interference and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, and the grant of summary judgment to Harbin Clinic on her negligent supervision claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment to Dr. Sands on Mindy Howerton's claims for tortious interference with her employment contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress? 2. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment to Harbin Clinic, LLC on Mindy Howerton's claim for negligent supervision?
Opinions:
Majority - Branch, Judge
Yes, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Dr. Sands on Howerton’s claims for tortious interference with her employment contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Regarding tortious interference, Dr. Sands was a 'stranger' to Howerton's employment contract with FMC. He was not a party to the contract, nor was he an intended third-party beneficiary; the incidental benefit of having qualified staff for surgery did not confer a direct economic interest in Howerton’s personal employment agreement. Furthermore, Dr. Sands, as an employee of Harbin Clinic, had no authority to terminate or recommend the termination of an FMC employee. The court found that a jury question existed as to whether Dr. Sands acted with malice—meaning without legal justification—when he reported Howerton's alleged HIPAA violation, as evidence suggested his motive could have been to undermine her sexual harassment allegations rather than a genuine legal obligation. There was also sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Dr. Sands’s conduct (reporting recordings, leading to a job skills criticism and shift changes) adversely affected Howerton's employment. Regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Dr. Sands's conduct was 'extreme and outrageous' and caused 'severe emotional distress.' Specifically, Dr. Sands's alleged statements about viewing Howerton's genitals during a gynecological procedure and his exposure of his pubic hair and penis to her were deemed to go 'beyond all reasonable bounds of decency.' The court recognized that conduct in a workplace context, especially a pervasive pattern of harassment by someone with perceived authority, may produce a greater character of outrageousness. Howerton also provided medical records detailing physical and mental manifestations of her distress, such as alopecia, anxiety, migraines, and sleep difficulties, for which she sought medical treatment and medication, meeting the 'severe' emotional distress threshold. No, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Harbin Clinic, LLC on Howerton’s claim for negligent supervision. The record lacked evidence showing that Harbin Clinic knew or should have known of Dr. Sands's propensity for unprofessional or sexually harassing conduct prior to Howerton's lawsuit. Howerton had only reported the conduct to her FMC supervisors, not to Harbin Clinic. Harbin Clinic had also conducted a thorough background check before hiring Dr. Sands, which revealed no prior issues.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high bar for tortious interference with an employment contract, particularly in a multi-entity setting, by strictly defining who qualifies as a 'stranger' to a contract based on direct economic interest or authority. It also provides a significant example of when sexual harassment in the workplace can meet Georgia’s stringent 'extreme and outrageous' standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress, especially when there is a pervasive pattern of abuse and documented medical evidence of severe distress. The ruling emphasizes the importance of promptly reporting misconduct to the correct employer to establish liability for negligent supervision, highlighting the limitations on holding an employer vicariously liable for an employee's actions without prior knowledge of their tendencies.
