12.4 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Employees often assert that the employer’s actions were extreme and outrageous and were intended to inflict emotional distress on the employee. To state a valid claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Arizona law, the employee must establish: (1) that the employer engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) that the employer either intended to cause or recklessly disregarded the near certainty that emotional distress would result from this conduct; and (3) that the employer’s conduct actually caused the employee severe emotional distress.42
An employee cannot prevail on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim unless the employer’s conduct is found to be extraordinary.43 “A plaintiff must show that the defendant’s acts were ‘so outrageous in character and so extreme a degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’”44 The terms “outrageous conduct” and “severe emotional distress” are not readily capable of precise legal definition.45 The factors that have been traditionally considered by Arizona courts include: (1) the position occupied by the defendant; and (2) the defendant’s knowledge that the plaintiff is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress by reason of some physical or mental condition.46
“[I]t is extremely rare to find conduct in the employment context that would rise to the level of outrageousness necessary to provide a basis for recovery for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.”47 Even when conduct is motivated by retaliation, it is rare that it will reach the level of outrageousness necessary to support a claim.48
The leading case in Arizona addressing this issue in the employment context is Ford v. Revlon.49 In Ford, the plaintiff-employee brought action against the manager of the corporation and the corporation for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The manager invited the plaintiff to a dinner ostensibly to discuss business away from the office. The employee agreed and met the manager at a restaurant. During the dinner, the business discussion turned to personal topics. At the end of the dinner, the plaintiff started to leave, but her manager told her that she was not going anywhere and to sit down because he planned to spend the night with her. When the plaintiff rejected his advances, the manager told her that she would regret it.
The manager continued to harass the plaintiff by, among other things, asserting that he wanted to have sexual relations, grabbing her and restraining her in a choke hold, and fondling her genitalia. The plaintiff reported these incidents to management and informed management that she was afraid of her manager and was becoming ill as a result of the sexual harassment. Her manager continued to harass her by, among other things, making threatening calls to destroy her. Management did not take immediate affirmative action to stop any harassment but instead took over three months to finally discipline the manager. Several months later, the plaintiff attempted...
