Free Consultation   Contact Us
No Recovery No Fee*   (310) 356-1006     (323) 909-WAGE (9243)
By

admin

Elements needed for two independent torts for emotional distress:

I. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

  • Defendant engaged in negligent conduct (to be discussed in greater detail in a later post);
  • Plaintiff suffered emotional distress (to be discussed in greater detail in a later post); AND
  • Defendant’s negligent conduct was a cause of the serious emotional distress.

II. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

  • Outrageous conduct on the part of the Defendant;
  • Defendant intended to cause emotional distress, or, Defendant acted in reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress;
  • Plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; AND
  • Defendant’s conduct was the actual and and proximate cause of the emotional distress (see, Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-498.)

Actual and Proximate will be explored in later posts.

Both California and Federal law have generally defined sexual harassment as unwanted sexual conduct of two main types: quid pro quo harassment and hostile environment harassment. Quid pro quo harassment occurs when employment is conditioned, expressly or impliedly, on the submission to unwelcome sexual advances. See Nichols v. Frank (9th Cir 1994) 42 F.3d 503. Hostile environment harassment generally occurs when the plaintiff’s work environment is made hostile or abusive by sexual misconduct. See, Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1045; Mogilefsky v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1414; Montero v. AGCO Corp. (9th Cir 1999) 192 F.3d 856, 860; Fuller v. City of Oakland (9th Cir 1995) 47 F.3d 1522, 1527.

The Harasser

Under California Law the harasser is personally liable to the victim of the harassment. If the harasser is a supervisor, or in...
Read More