Yes. The employee's story is serious enough to be considered a personal injury lawsuit. The judge explained that the boss's actions weren't just 'workplace harassment'; they were also specific wrongs that have always been against the law. The constant creepy phone calls were an invasion of privacy. The unwanted touching was a 'battery,' and making her afraid of being touched was an 'assault.' The whole situation was so extreme and awful that it could be legally considered 'intentional infliction of emotional distress,' which means he deliberately caused her severe mental pain. Therefore, her lawsuit is valid and can proceed.

Yes, the boss's behavior might have broken some laws that allow Norma to sue. I'm saying that Norma can continue with her lawsuit for some of the things she's complaining about. She says her boss invaded her privacy, scared her, touched her when she didn't want to be touched, and was really mean to her in a way that could seriously upset someone. If what Norma says is true, a jury might decide that the boss and the hotel did something wrong and should pay for it. However, some of the other things Norma complained about, like discrimination, can't be part of this lawsuit because they don't fit this situation. Also, some of the hotel companies Norma tried to sue aren't responsible because they don't actually run the hotel where she worked.

Yes. The plaintiff's allegations of persistent, unwanted sexual advances, offensive touching, and creation of a hostile work environment are sufficient to state a claim for invasion of privacy, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court reasoned that the alleged conduct went far beyond the bounds of acceptable workplace behavior. Deavers's persistent and leering phone calls to Rogers's home and workplace constituted an intrusion into a sphere where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The alleged unwanted touching, such as hair pulling, established a claim for battery, and the creation of imminent apprehension of such contact established a claim for assault. Finally, the cumulative effect of the supervisor's sexual advances, threats, physical contact, and the hotel management's alleged inaction could be found by a jury to be so extreme and outrageous as to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, which does not require a physical injury for recovery.

Yes. The conduct alleged by the plaintiff states valid claims under common law tort theories. I deny the defendants' motions to dismiss the tort claims because the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, could support claims for invasion of privacy, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The invasion of privacy claim is valid because the alleged persistent and unwanted telephone calls and comments about the plaintiff's personal life could constitute an intrusion into a sphere from which the plaintiff could reasonably expect the defendant to be excluded. The assault and battery claims are sufficiently pled because the plaintiff alleges unwanted physical contact and conduct that put her in apprehension of harmful contact. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim survives because the alleged conduct, if proven, could be considered extreme and outrageous. I grant summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and the Thirteenth Amendment, as these do not apply to sex-based discrimination. I also dismiss the corporate defendants other than Loews Washington Hotel Corporation, as they do not control the day-to-day operations of the hotel. The plaintiff's requests for damages and a jury trial are allowed to proceed, as these are appropriate for the remaining tort claims.

Rogers v. Loews L'Enfant Plaza Hotel

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot