Williams v. TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
958 P.2d 202, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 576, 153 Or.App. 686 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Harassment directed at an individual based on a protected status, such as a physical disability, by a person in a special relationship with the victim, like a provider of public transportation, may constitute an extraordinary transgression of socially tolerable conduct sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), even if the conduct occurs on a single occasion.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a woman with a physical disability, boarded a defendant Tri-Met bus with her assistance dog.
- The Tri-Met driver loudly berated and insulted the plaintiff in front of other passengers, questioning her right to bring the dog onto the bus.
- The driver refused to examine paperwork offered by the plaintiff to verify the dog's status.
- The driver questioned why the plaintiff needed an assistance dog, stated she did not look disabled, and accused her of faking her disability to receive a reduced fare.
- The driver ordered the plaintiff to sit down.
- As the plaintiff's stop approached, the driver ordered her to get off the bus and told her not to reboard any bus he was driving in the future.
- The driver also loudly proclaimed that he did not have to have 'any stupid dog on the bus if he did not want it to be there.'
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant Tri-Met in an Oregon trial court for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendant Tri-Met filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the complaint failed to state a claim because the alleged conduct was not 'socially intolerable' as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted defendant's motion and entered judgment in favor of Tri-Met.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Oregon, the state's intermediate appellate 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 a public bus driver's conduct, which involves loudly berating, publicly questioning the disability of, and threatening to deny future service to a physically disabled passenger, constitute an 'extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct' sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Linder, J.
Yes. The alleged conduct constitutes an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct sufficient to state a claim for IIED. The analysis of an IIED claim is fact-specific and must consider the relationship between the parties. Here, the relationship between a provider of public transportation and a disabled passenger imposes a greater obligation on the provider to refrain from abusive conduct. Analogizing to cases involving racial and sexual harassment, the court found that insults directed at individuals based on historically disfavored personal characteristics, like a disability, more readily transgress social bounds. This view is supported by the extensive legal framework protecting disabled persons from discrimination. The combination of three factors—(1) harassing treatment based on the plaintiff's disabled status, (2) the driver's special relationship to her as a public carrier, and (3) the public setting of the incident—is sufficient to allow a jury to find the conduct socially intolerable, even though it was a single event.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'socially tolerable conduct' standard for IIED is highly contextual and not merely a measure of the severity of words or actions in isolation. It establishes that conduct targeting a person's protected status, particularly by an actor in a position of authority or in a special relationship, is more likely to be deemed an 'extraordinary transgression.' The ruling lowers the barrier for plaintiffs from protected classes to bring IIED claims, emphasizing that bias-motivated harassment inflicts a distinct and more severe emotional harm. This precedent will influence future IIED cases by requiring courts to give significant weight to the victim's status and their relationship to the tortfeasor when evaluating the outrageousness of the conduct.
