Watte v. EDGAR MAEYENS, JR., MD, PC
112 Or. App. 234, 828 P.2d 479, 7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 558 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the defendant's conduct must be an 'extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct,' meaning it must be 'outrageous in the extreme' and exceed merely rude, boorish, or mean behavior.
Facts:
- Maeyens, P.C., an employer, called plaintiff Watte and three other employees (Loanne Fitzhugh, Kathleen Ouellette, and Kathryn F. Cutlip) into his office.
- Maeyens ordered the four employees to sit together in front of him and paced tensely with clenched hands.
- Maeyens abruptly demanded the employees surrender their office keys.
- Maeyens then, with a smile, ordered the four employees to hold hands; when Watte asked why, he responded, 'you know why,' before angrily firing all four.
- Maeyens accused the employees of sabotaging his office, calling them liars, and stating they were sabotaging new and future employees.
- Maeyens informed the employees they could not use him as a referral for future employment and ordered them to get out, stating he didn't want to see their faces in his office again.
- When Mrs. Fitzhugh asked for an explanation, Maeyens responded by threatening to bodily throw her out, 'pregnant or not'.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Watte and other employees) filed separate complaints against their former employer (Maeyens, P.C., and Maeyens personally) in an Oregon trial court, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaints under ORCP 21A(8), finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim.
- The plaintiffs refused to replead their complaints after the dismissal, presumably having stated their case as strongly as the facts permitted.
- The plaintiffs appealed the judgments dismissing their claims to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
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 during a mass termination—which includes ordering employees to hold hands, demanding keys, pacing tensely, accusing them of being liars and saboteurs, refusing explanation, and rashly ordering them off the premises, along with threatening a pregnant employee—constitute an 'extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct' sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Warren, P. J.
No, an employer's conduct during a mass termination that includes ordering employees to hold hands, demanding keys, pacing tensely, accusing them of being liars and saboteurs, refusing explanation, and rashly ordering them off the premises, along with threatening a pregnant employee, does not constitute an 'extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct' sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that while the alleged conduct might be 'insulting, rude, boorish, tyrannical, churlish and mean,' it did not rise to the level of 'outrageous in the extreme' required for an IIED claim. Citing Lewis v. Oregon Beauty Supply Co. and Patton v. J. C. Penney Co., the court reiterated that discharge alone does not constitute such a transgression, and mere 'insults, harsh or intimidating words, or rude behavior ordinarily result in liability even when intended to cause distress' (Hall v. The May Dept. Stores). The court distinguished the facts from cases like Woods v. First American Title Ins. Co.* where false accusations of criminal conduct or unwarranted criminal investigations were involved, noting that such egregious circumstances were not present here.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high threshold for proving intentional infliction of emotional distress, particularly in the employment context in Oregon. It reinforces that while an employer's conduct during termination can be unpleasant, rude, or even offensive, it must be 'outrageous in the extreme' to be actionable. This standard helps prevent ordinary workplace grievances or difficult terminations from escalating into IIED lawsuits, emphasizing that courts will not intervene unless the behavior truly exceeds all societal norms of toleration. Future cases will continue to cite this standard, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate conduct far beyond mere insults, harsh words, or managerial assertiveness.
