Yurick v. Superior Court
209 Cal. App. 3d 1116, 257 Cal. Rptr. 665, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 376 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies by filing an administrative charge that is 'like or reasonably related to' the claims later brought in a civil action. For intentional infliction of emotional distress, conduct must be 'extreme and outrageous' to exceed all bounds usually tolerated in a civilized community; mere insults, indignities, or annoyances, even from a superior in the workplace, do not suffice without additional aggravating circumstances or clear intent to cause severe distress.
Facts:
- Mary Antonetti was employed in the purchasing department of Oroville Hospital as an assistant to the department manager.
- On May 23, 1985, Antonetti filed a charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) alleging unlawful gender discrimination by Oroville Hospital, specifically that she was denied equal pay for equal work because of her gender.
- In March 1986, Donald Yurick became Antonetti's supervisor.
- Between March and June 1986, Yurick, knowing Antonetti was more than 40 years old, repeatedly told her and others in the workplace that anyone over 40 was senile, and that Antonetti herself was senile and a liar.
- Antonetti was terminated from employment in June 1986.
- Antonetti did not amend her administrative charge to include age harassment or name Yurick as a discriminating party.
- Antonetti did not complain about Yurick's comments to anyone at Oroville Hospital.
- When asked, Antonetti stated she knew of no facts to support that Yurick made the statements with the intent to drive her from her job or to cause her mental stress or suffering, beyond the fact that he said them, and noted his remarks were only 'not so bad as to what could come out of Mr. Yurick's mouth' as he had described himself as an 'asshole' when they first met.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Antonetti (plaintiff) commenced an action in superior court against Oroville Hospital and Donald Yurick (among others), alleging gender discrimination, unlawful retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful discharge, and age harassment.
- Antonetti's complaint charged Yurick only with age harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Donald Yurick filed a motion for summary judgment in the superior court, contending Antonetti failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to the age harassment claim and that his conduct was not outrageous as a matter of law for the emotional distress claim.
- The superior court denied Yurick's motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
- Donald Yurick (petitioner) sought a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, directing the superior court to vacate its denial and to grant his motion.
- The Court of Appeal notified the parties it was considering issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance, and Antonetti (real party in interest) filed opposition.
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 plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies under FEHA for age harassment when her administrative charge alleged only gender discrimination against a different party, and are a supervisor's repeated insults regarding age ('senile,' 'liar') 'extreme and outrageous conduct' sufficient for intentional infliction of emotional distress, even in an employment setting where the supervisor holds a position of power?
Opinions:
Majority - Puglia, P. J.
No, Mary Antonetti did not exhaust her administrative remedies as to the age harassment claim against Donald Yurick, and his conduct did not rise to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' necessary for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court held that to bring a civil action under FEHA, an aggrieved person must exhaust administrative remedies, meaning the claims in the lawsuit must be 'like or reasonably related to' the allegations contained in the administrative charge. Antonetti's administrative charge alleged only gender discrimination against Oroville Hospital, filed almost a year before Yurick became her supervisor and before the alleged age harassment began. The administrative charge did not mention age harassment, nor did it name Yurick. Antonetti also did not amend her charge to include these new allegations or name Yurick. To permit her to pursue the age harassment claim would undermine FEHA's policy of resolving disputes through conciliation. Regarding the emotional distress claim, the court affirmed that 'extreme and outrageous conduct' is an essential element, requiring conduct 'so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.' While a defendant abusing a position of power can make conduct outrageous, Antonetti failed to show specific details or context where Yurick abused his position or that his remarks were anything more than 'mild insults' consistent with his customary communication style. The court distinguished this case from others involving racial epithets, abrupt firing, or false felony accusations, finding Yurick's alleged conduct, while objectively offensive, was not 'so egregiously outside the realm of civilized conduct as to give rise to actionable infliction of mental distress.' Therefore, Yurick was entitled to summary adjudication on both causes of action.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement under FEHA, underscoring that claims in a subsequent civil action must be closely aligned with, or 'reasonably related to,' those presented in the initial administrative complaint. This promotes the statutory goal of conciliation by preventing plaintiffs from bypassing the administrative process for claims not originally raised. Additionally, the ruling establishes a high threshold for 'extreme and outrageous conduct' in intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, particularly in employment settings. It indicates that offensive verbal abuse by a supervisor, even if repeated, may not be actionable without a clear showing of abusive intent, severe impact, or aggravating circumstances beyond mere insults, making it more challenging for employees to succeed on such claims based solely on offensive language.
