Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on Ms Thatcher by Blair, Peel & Pitt - Assignment Example

MEMORANDUM Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on Ms. Thatcher by Blair, Peel & Pitt Question Presented Did the law firm Blair, Peel and Pitt treat Ms. Thatcher unfairly by assigning another associate to the Tory Industries at her expense? Were Mr. Blair’s actions outrageous in nature and was Ms. Thatcher’s demotion done in a retaliatory manner? Was their action sufficient to satisfy the Pennsylvanian common law on intentional infliction of emotional distress given that Ms. Thatcher has been diagnosed with severe depression which occurred as a result of her demotion? This demotion was given to her as a way of punishing her for not taking orders from her boss. Brief Answer Blair, Peel and Pitt treated Ms Thatcher unfairly and in a retaliatory manner because there is no evidence that she was not performing well at the office. Her demotion was caused by her refusal to engage in sexual act with Mr. Blair. His insistence on seducing her and sexually harassing her at work didn’t pay so he decided to retaliate through unfair demotion. When he is telling Ms Thatcher to loosen up if she wanted to succeed in the firm, he is implying that the only way for Thatcher to thrive here is to give sex in return for promotions and salary increment. As a matter of fact if there is any reason why Ms. Thatcher wasn’t giving out her best at work is because she was never relaxed there. That is if and only if she was not performing well but the defendant has not given us enough evidence to suggest that this was the case. There is no way she could be relaxed when she was being harassed by her own boss. The office setting was very intimidating as she had no space to work with the boss watching pornography and touching her at his own pleasure. Statement of Facts Ms Wendy Thatcher wants to bring a lawsuit against her employer for sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She has been working for Blair, Peel and Pitt law firm for two years and had been reassigned to work for Mr. Blair on class litigation. Tory Industries, Inc. is one of the major clients of this firm so being assigned to them was a very lucrative opportunity for Ms Thatcher. Mr. Blair is the main litigation partner of Blair, Peel and Pitt so this is obviously a good job for her and an opportunity for her to improve her career. As a young associate her duties involved repeated trips to the premises of Tory Industries which is located in another city; she was responsible for document review and depositions. The firm offered Mr. Blair to be accompanying her when the trips involved deposition because as a senior attorney he could take the deposition. The firm reserved different hotel rooms for each of them and a common work suite. This however did not deter Mr. Blair from sexually harassing Ms Thatcher as he could do this during the office hours. He took advantage of his position in the firm to harass her junior and could not stomach any sort of resistance from her. In fact to him, the only way for Ms Thatcher to succeed was to offer him sexual favors in return for her success as an employee of the firm. This however was not to be the case as Ms. Thatcher refused to adhere to his demands, something that did not go well with him. This is what prompted his decision to replace her with a different person because he could not put up with such form of resistance. This demotion was purely retaliatory and had nothing to do with Ms. Thatcher’s output as an employee of the firm. As a matter of fact if there is any reason why Ms. Thatcher wasn’t giving out her best at work is because she was never relaxed there. There is no way she could be relaxed when she was being harassed by her own boss. The implication is that if they were convinced that their objective was to increase output, then the cause of her loss in output could have been addressed by either separating her from her abusive boss or talking the boss into changing his bad behavior. Instead what happened was that she just faced the demotion without even a hearing, something that completely devastated her. Discussion Ms Thatcher was unfairly dismissed from her position by Mr. Blair because there was no evidence that she was performing below the expected output. Taking the assumption that she was underperforming, then Mr. Blair knew exactly why things were happening this way. He should have acted as a manager by fixing the problem in a proper manner instead of victimizing Ms Thatcher. The supreme court of Pennsylvania does not recognize the tort of intentional infliction of emotional stress but holds that such claims are covered in situations where “One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another” (1996 WL 20651 (E.D.Pa)). An individual can therefore file a claim against the defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Pennsylvania on this ground. The terms extreme and outrageous in this context implies that the conduct in question was outrageous in nature and very extreme beyond the limits of decency. Once such limits have been surpassed then an action is termed as atrocious and intolerable in the current civilized society. This means that any member of the society should be disgusted by such a case for it to qualify to be handled under this tort. What Mr. Blair did was outrageous and unethical because there is no way he was going to intimidate Ms Thatcher into having sex with him even when it was evident that she was not interested in it. His consistent sexual harassment in the office prevented the plaintiff from efficiently discharging her duties in the firm because of the stubborn nature of her boss. She was not relaxed in the office and had no one to report to since this was her boss with the ability to determine her future prosperity or failure in the firm. Demoting her on retaliatory grounds was purely unjustified and that is why she was very depressed. Physical contacts that cause distress to the plaintiff are also considered strong grounds for staging a case although Ms Thatcher never reported this and as such cannot be considered as evidence against Mr. Blair. Although, there were instances where Mr. Blair touched her in the office without her consent there is no evidence that this caused her emotional distress in the short run. It prevented her from giving out the maximum output as the boss was always there to distract her in one way or the other. This however does not make him innocent because the distress that Ms Thatcher is experiencing is as a result of both the sexual harassment and the demotion. For a case to be considered on claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Pennsylvania, the plaintiff must prove that he or she has emotional distress that resulted from the actions of the defendants (Kazatsky, 527 A.2d at 995). This is very visible in Ms Thatcher’s case as she is depressed because of the demotion she got out of retaliation. Retaliation leads to an individual being assigned a burden of tasks, subjected to negative evaluation and punitive transfers. It leaves someone with no desire to work due to the loss of morale and self dignity. Ms Thatcher was serving the firm well and expected decent treatment from them but instead all they had to offer in return was sexual harassment and unfair treatment. Her demotion was to express displeasure at the fact that she refused to quench her boss’ sexual desires. Furthermore the Supreme Court states that such distress should be easily visible even without the provision of medical proof (1999 WL 330258 (E.D. Pa.)). All these was easily seen in Ms Thatcher’s case and with the addition of medical proof from her psychologist, it is evident that her depression was caused by her unfair demotion. This was getting the best of her as she was spending a lot of her time thinking about what she was going through as a result of Mr. Blair’s selfish individualistic desires. Her dreams of self actualization at this firm were being frustrated by one man who had also made it very clear to her that the only way for her to prosper was through having sex with him. For an individual to be able to stage a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress under the Pennsylvanian common law, he or she must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he or she was close to the accident scene or negligent act. Additionally, the distress or shock must have directly resulted from direct emotional impact ((1996 WL 20651 (E.D.Pa)). With regard to this, physical injury should be manifested and must have occurred as a result of the negligent actions. Under this clause compensable injuries are as follows: mental aberration, nausea, repeated hysterical attacks and headaches. Temporary fright, grief, rage, nausea and shock are not compensable because they are temporary and can easily be forgotten but once they remain for prolonged period of time then they should be compensated (720 A.2d 745 (Pa. 1998)) .The negligent infliction of emotional pain does not require the plaintiff to provide competent medical evidence. All it requires is the evidence that the distress being suffered is not temporary and resulted from the negligence of the defendant. Ms Thatcher was suffering from severe depression which had occurred as a result of her unfair demotion and this was now even affecting her at work. Negligence claims is made up of four elements under the Pennsylvanian common law. The first one is neglecting a duty or obligation recognized by the law, requiring someone to conform to a certain standard of conduct. Once someone does this, then it is an intentional violation of the law since the set standards of conduct must be obeyed at all times. A failure to conform to a certain standard is also unlawful since it constitutes negligence and carelessness (1996 WL 20651(E.D.P.a)). Furthermore, there should be a connection between the conduct and the resultant injury and the link should be beyond any reasonable doubt. Lastly, the loss suffered by the plaintiff should be at the interest of the defendant. If it’s not at the defendant’s interest then the link between the negligence and the defendant ceases to exist. The law firm completely neglected the interests of their employee as they left her on her own. Even though what Mr. Blair did was not beneficial to the firm in any way, the other partners should have come in to probe it. A warning to Ms. Thatcher would have been better if at all she was underperforming but demoting her without notice was unethically wrong. In the case of Ms Thatcher vs. Blair, Peel & Pitt, there is no benefit the firm is going to gain by neglecting to monitor the behavior of its staff but the fact that Mr. Blair is among the key decision makers in the firm makes this case admissible. The company tried its best to offer the two members of staff separate hotel rooms to avert any possible of sexual harassment. But Mr. Blair just went overboard as he wanted to gain sexual favor from a member of his staff unlawfully by failing to adhere to the work ethics or even the normal way of dating if his feelings for Ms Thatcher were genuine. This subjected the plaintiff to a very hostile work environment as she was consistently being harassed by her boss. When pornographic movies are being played in the office setting and two people of the opposite sex are the only occupants then it only means that that is not an office anymore especially if the boss’ objectives are different from that of the other member of staff. Additionally, the fact that Mr. Blair is able to make drastic decisions like demotion on his own without consultations or even notice to the affected person means that the organizational structure of that firm has some sections that need to be fixed (677 F. Supp.307 (M.D.Pa.1988)). It is this negligence that has caused Ms. Thatcher to be in this bad shape since her depression is a direct consequence of the unfair treatment she got from the law firm. The company should therefore bear the full force of the law because of its failure to properly cater for the rights of its employees. Its failure to ensure that its senior employees are obeying their juniors led to the unfair demotion of Ms Thatcher. Read More