Writing an open MEMO - Term Paper Example

Having been dismissed three times, De La Campa still insists that she was discriminated against and her supervisors said words that were against her gender. Yes she has a case since the words spoken to her by her supervisor and employer are sexually discriminating and she therefore needs justice Answer No in these cases, first De La Campa appeals against her case with her employer and supervisors about her sexual arrestment. Having gone to three courts both dismissing her cases against her supervisors as containing no intentional inflictions of any emotional distress on De La Campa based on her sexual orientation.

In this case, De La Campa alleges that Garcia and Teixeira subjected her to a pervasive and severe pattern of sexual harassment. This included and not limited to comments that were derogatory that were homosexually related, unwelcoming abusive conducts and acts that were directed to her due to her sexual orientation, and since she asked for her right to work freely without discrimination, all these were given to her. She claims that Teixeira advised her that Grifols was not very pleased by the way that she was sexually oriented and that this could lead to her termination.

She also claims that she was excluded from social functions and corporate sponsored functions due to her sexual orientation.. CREAC [Contention] De La Campa has a case against her employer and her supervisors due to the harassment that she got from her sexual orientation and the exclusion that she got from her sexual orientation. It is also evident from the actions of the employers that threatened the termination of De La Campa that she was going to be terminated due to her sexual orientation. . Aguilera also has a case due to the injury that she got from the machines that were operated by the company. Mrs. McCarson is also entitled to sue the insurance company for failing to pay for her medication yet she had been insured.

[Rule] The only element of the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress tort that is in dispute is the “outrageous” element. The Florida Supreme Court defines an outrageous conduct as a conduct that is “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarron, 467 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla.1985) (adopting standard set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 46 cmt. d (1965) for evaluating claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress).

What constitutes outrageous conduct is a question for the trial court to determine as a matter of law. Johnson v. Thigpen, 788 So.2d 410, 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). [Explanation] from this it is clear that a person is guilty of sexual discrimination only if he/she does anything that s considered outrageous and that goes beyond any possible bounds of decency. It is very important to consider an act as outrageous since this will be the factor to make the employer guilty or not. Due to the distress that De La Campa experienced, it is evident that she has a case here