Opinion
CIVIL ACTION, NUMBER 01-2598, SECTION "L" (2).
April 22, 2002
Order Reasons
Before the Court are Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs original complaint and Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint. For the following reasons, the motions are DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
In February of 1997, Plaintiff, Raymond Lara, was hired by the Defendant as a bulk driver assigned to deliver Defendant's products to stores in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Plaintiff was soon promoted, in May of 1997, to the position of sales manager. Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate training for this new position, and "was subjected to discrimination, racial slurs, harassment, physical abuse, emotional distress, and a hostile work environment." See Plaintiff's Complaint, at 3. In August, 2001, Plaintiff filed suit, pro Se, alleging violations under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000, as well as Louisiana employment discrimination laws, under title 23, sections 1006 and 332 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. Plaintiff also alleged that the Defendant "was liable for the intentional infliction of emotional distress" pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code article 2315. See id. at 4.
Defendant moves to dismiss portions of Plaintiffs original complaint, arguing that the Plaintiffs "conclusory" allegations do not satisfy the high standard of "extreme and outrageous conduct" required to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Louisiana law. See Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, at 4. Defendant also asserts that because title 23, section 1006 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes has been repealed, Plaintiffs claims under that statute should be dismissed or consolidated with his other state law claims.
In December 2001, Plaintiff, through counsel, filed an amended complaint, in which he consolidated the claims asserted under title 23 section 1006 with those asserted under section 332, thus rendering Defendant's motion to dismiss those claims moot. In addition, Plaintiff supplemented the allegations in support of his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. In this amended complaint, Plaintiff describes being "subjected to a barrage of ridicule and intimidation on a daily basis" and unwelcome, threatening physical contact initiated by his Frito-Lay supervisor, Steve Nichols. See Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, at 2. Plaintiff argues that this alleged "verbal abuse, intimidating physical behavior and undermining of [his] performance, directly interfered with [his] ability to do his job and resulted in his termination and inability to flnd work elsewhere." See id. at 3.
Defendant now moves for dismissal of this amended complaint. Recognizing that Plaintiff has consolidated his Louisiana employment claims under section 332, Defendant's motion addresses Plaintiffs claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant argues that the allegations included in Plaintiffs amended complaint, while serious, simply "do not rise to the high threshold necessary to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress" under Louisiana law. See Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, at 3. Accordingly, Defendant seeks dismissal of the claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Federal Rule 12(b)(6)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a defendant to seek dismissal of a complaint based on the "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court should construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, assuming all factual allegations to be true. See Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 754 (5th Cir. 1999). Rule 12(b)(6) motions are viewed with disfavcv-and are rarely granted. See Id. A complaint may not be dismissed "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id. (quoting Lowrey v. Texas A M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997)).
B. Intentional lnfliction of Emotional Distress
The elements of a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress were delineated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So.2d 1205, 1209 (La. 1991). To prevail a plaintiff must prove: 1) that the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous; 2) that the emotional distress of the plaintiff was severe; and 3) that the defendant desired to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that severe emotional distress would be certain or substantially certain to result from his conduct. Id. at 1209.
The White court further explained that:
[t]he conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Liability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. Persons must necessarily be expected to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind.See id.
Courts Liave also recognized that a "plaintiffs status as an employee may entitle him to a greater degree of protection from insult and outrage by a supervisor with authority over him than if he were a stranger." See id. at 1210. However, recognition of a cause of action in a workplace setting is "usually limited to cases involving a pattem of deliberate, repeated harassment over a period of time." See id., see also Bustamento v. Tucker, 607 So.2d 532, 538 (La. 1992) (explaining that "this has been characterized as a sliding scale approach under which even relatively `mild' harassment may become tortious if continued over a substantial period of time"). Moreover, cases arising in the workplace are limited to situations in which the distress is "more than a reasonable person could be expected to endure" and the offending conduct is "intended or calculated to cause severe emotional distress." See Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 So.2d 1017, 1027 (La. 2000).
In this case, Plaintiff alleges a pattem of repeated harassment on a daily basis, over a period of two years. Plaintiff complains of both physical and verbal abuse and alleges that his supervisor, Steve Nichols, instigated this abuse both publicly and in private. The Court finds that, accepting all of Plaintiffs allegations as true, the Plaintiff has sufficientfy stated a claim which survives dismissal based on Federal Rule 12(b)(6). The Court recognizes, however, the high burden set forth in White v. Monsanto and its progeny. Although dismissal is not appropriate at this stage, parties retain the right to move for summary judgment, if appropriate, after discovery.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint and Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint are DENIED.