Swenson v. Northern Crop Insurance, Inc.
498 N.W.2d 174 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's pattern of discriminatory conduct and comments, when combined with an abuse of the employer-employee power dynamic and knowledge of the employee's particular emotional vulnerability, may be sufficient for a jury to find the conduct 'extreme and outrageous' for the purposes of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
Facts:
- Catherine Swenson began working for Northern Crop Insurance, Inc. (NCI) as a clerk/secretary in February 1986.
- After the office manager resigned in December 1986, NCI's Board of Directors promoted Swenson to the position over the objection of NCI officer John Krabseth, who stated he wanted a 'man fresh out of college' for the role.
- Following her promotion, Swenson was paid approximately $5,000 per year less than her male predecessor, Rick Wallace.
- Krabseth repeatedly made derogatory comments to Swenson, stating that a man belonged in her position, that men deserved more pay to support families, and that he intended to replace her with a man.
- During an office reorganization, Krabseth demoted Swenson back to her clerk/secretary position and cut her pay to $6.00 per hour, which was less than she originally earned in that role.
- Krabseth hired two young men for newly created positions at higher pay rates than Swenson without offering her an opportunity to apply for them.
- Krabseth began to isolate Swenson by refusing to speak with her or hold meetings about her employment.
- During this period, Swenson, a recovering alcoholic, informed Krabseth that she needed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings during her lunch hour to cope with work-related stress.
Procedural Posture:
- Catherine Swenson sued Northern Crop Insurance, Inc. and John Krabseth in the District Court for Williams County, a state trial court.
- Swenson's complaint included claims for gender discrimination, equal pay violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all three claims.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing Swenson's entire lawsuit.
- Swenson, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment dismissal to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
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 pattern of discriminatory conduct, comments, demotion, and isolation, combined with knowledge of the employee's emotional vulnerability, potentially constitute 'extreme and outrageous' conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Erickstad, J.
Yes, an employer's pattern of discriminatory conduct may constitute 'extreme and outrageous' conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court reasoned that while discriminatory acts alone may not always meet the high standard for this tort, a combination of factors must be considered. Here, the alleged facts involve not only blatant gender discrimination but also two additional elements: the abuse of the employer-employee relationship, which gives the employer power over the employee's interests, and the employer's knowledge of the employee's particular susceptibility to emotional distress (her status as a recovering alcoholic). Because reasonable people could differ on whether this combination of conduct was 'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,' the issue is a question of fact for the jury, and summary judgment was improper.
Concurring - Levine, J.
Yes. This opinion joins the majority but argues that sex discrimination alone, without the additional factors, may be sufficient to constitute 'outrageous' conduct in modern society. The concurring justice asserts that discrimination strips its victim of dignity and self-esteem, which is the 'nub of its evil and the stuff of its outrageousness.' As societal standards of decency evolve, conduct that was once tolerated, like the historical exclusion of women from the legal profession, is now rightfully seen as intolerable. Therefore, a jury, as representatives of the community, should be allowed to determine if sex discrimination itself is 'atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Vande Walle, C.J.
No. This opinion dissents from the majority's holding on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. While condemning the alleged conduct as unacceptable and discriminatory, the dissenting justice argues that it does not meet the extremely high legal standard for outrageousness established in prior case law, which requires conduct 'beyond all possible bounds of decency.' The dissent expresses concern that the majority's decision significantly lowers the bar for this tort, transforming it into a general remedy for any discrimination claim and making nearly every accusation of emotional distress a jury question. This, the dissent fears, does 'violence to settled law' by expanding the tort beyond its intended narrow scope.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) within the employment context in North Dakota. It establishes that a pattern of discriminatory conduct, which might typically be addressed under statutory law, can also form the basis of a common law tort claim for IIED. By focusing on the combination of discrimination, the inherent power imbalance in the employer-employee relationship, and the employer's knowledge of an employee's vulnerability, the court creates a new framework for evaluating such claims. This precedent potentially allows plaintiffs to pursue IIED claims in workplace discrimination cases even when statutory remedies are unavailable, such as when the employer does not meet a minimum employee threshold.
Unlock the full brief for Swenson v. Northern Crop Insurance, Inc.