Wilson v. Monarch Paper Co.
939 F.2d 1138 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's conduct rises to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress when it goes beyond a typical employment dispute and involves a systematic, degrading, and humiliating demotion of a long-time executive to menial, janitorial duties designed to force the employee to resign.
Facts:
- Richard E. Wilson, hired by Monarch Paper Company in 1970 at age 48, had a successful career, rising to Corporate Director of Physical Distribution, Vice President, and Assistant to the President.
- In 1981, a new, younger president, Hamilton Bisbee, took over and expressed a desire to bring in 'new blood' and develop a 'young team.'
- Bisbee began a campaign to remove Wilson, which included giving him the 'silent treatment,' stripping away his responsibilities, and having another manager remove files from his office after hours.
- Following the death of his supportive superior, Monarch gave Wilson, then 60 years old, three options: a sales job at half pay, termination, or a warehouse supervisor position.
- Wilson accepted the warehouse position but was placed in an entry-level supervisory role for which he was vastly overqualified.
- His new supervisor, who was previously his subordinate, subjected him to harassment, called him 'old man,' and posted signs saying 'Wilson is old.'
- Wilson's duties were reduced to the point that he spent 75 percent of his time on janitorial tasks, including sweeping the warehouse floors and cleaning the employee cafeteria.
- As a result of the stress and work conditions, Wilson developed severe respiratory and emotional problems, leading to a psychotic manic episode and involuntary hospitalization.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard E. Wilson filed suit against Monarch Paper Company in federal district court, alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas law.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Wilson on his age discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, awarding over $3.4 million in total damages.
- The jury found in favor of Monarch on Wilson's separate claim that the company retaliated against him for filing an EEOC charge.
- The district court denied Monarch's post-trial motions for a directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), a new trial, and remittitur.
- Monarch Paper Company, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 systematic campaign to humiliate a long-time executive by demoting him from a vice-president role to an entry-level position with menial, janitorial duties constitute 'extreme and outrageous' conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas law?
Opinions:
Majority - E. Grady Jolly
Yes, this conduct was extreme and outrageous. While ordinary employment disputes involving demotions or criticism do not typically support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), Monarch's actions went far beyond the bounds of decency. The court found that what distinguished this case from a typical dispute was the 'degrading and humiliating way' Wilson was stripped of his duties and demoted. Forcing a vice-president with 30 years of experience to perform menial janitorial services like sweeping floors and cleaning a cafeteria was a systematic and intentional campaign to humiliate him into resigning. This conduct was so painful and embarrassing that a reasonable jury could find it atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community, thus satisfying the 'extreme and outrageous' element of an IIED claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the high threshold for establishing an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim in the employment context within the Fifth Circuit's application of Texas law. It establishes a critical precedent by distinguishing ordinary employment hardships from truly outrageous conduct. The court signals that while employers have wide latitude to manage their workforce, a calculated, systematic campaign of extreme humiliation designed to constructively discharge an employee can create liability for IIED. This case provides a clear, albeit extreme, factual predicate—demoting an executive to janitorial duties—that future courts can use as a benchmark for what constitutes 'outrageous' conduct beyond a standard discrimination claim.
Unlock the full brief for Wilson v. Monarch Paper Co.