verbal abuse and disrespect do we have to put up with it ?????

is intentional infliction of emotional distress a fancy way of sayin a rude disrespectful verbally abusive supervisor ? and is it a proper term to file suit in NY ? if so and he has done this to many in our work force and after numerous complaints to his supervisors nothing has been done can we collectivly sue on such grounds ?

1 answer  |  asked Sep 18, 2003 6:41 PM [EST]  |  applies to New York

Answers (1)

David M. Lira
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

"Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" is a legal theory which is recognized by courts in New York State. However, it involves a fairly high level of proof. You would have to prove a fairly outrageous course of conduct that is beyond the bounds of common decency. (I am not trying to give you the precise legal standard, but to give you an idea of what is required.)

This theory of liability would also have a major drawback. You would likely be able to apply it only against the supervisor, and not your employer. This theory is considered an "intentional tort." It is very difficult to hold an employer responsible for the intentional torts of it employees. (Employees had tried to use this theory to attack discrimination, without much success. It was one reason why the anti-discrimination laws were needed.) To get the employer, you would have to show that the employer had a policy at least encouraging, if not requiring, the type of behavior the supervisor engages in.

If you go only against the supervisor, there is no guarantee that the behavior will stop. That is because this legal theory is a legal theory. That means you would likely only be able to get damages for past behavior. You would likely not be able to get a court order to prohibit continued behavior. Court hestitate issuing things like injunctions because that requires their continued involvement in a dispute. Generally, to get an injunction you have to meet a very high level of proof, or fall under some statute which lowers the burden of proof for you.

A money judgement might not mean much to this supervisor. He might be what attorneys call "judgment proof," because he may have few assets against which a money judgment can be enforced.

posted by David M. Lira  |  Sep 19, 2003 09:02 AM [EST]

Answer This Question

Sign In to Answer this Question

Related Questions with Answers

Have an Employment Law question?