To state a claim, the allegations about the severe emotional distress need not be detailed, but they must be specific. See, e.g., McAllister v. Ha, 347 N.C. 638, 646, 496 S.E.2d 577, 583 (1998); see also Pierce v. Atl. Grp., Inc., 219 N.C. App. 19, 32-33, 724 S.E.2d 568, 577-78 (affirming the trial court's 12(b)(6) dismissal of the plaintiff's claim where the sole allegation of emotional distress was "serious on and off the job stress, severely affecting his relationship with his wife and family members"), disc. review denied, 366 N.C. 235, 731 S.E.2d 413 (2012).
"However, wrongful discharge claims have been recognized in North Carolina where the employee was discharged (1) for refusing to violate the law at the employer's request, (2) for engaging in a legally protected activity, or (3) based on some activity by the employer contrary to law or public policy." Pierce v. Atlantic Grp., Inc. , 219 N.C. App. 19, 29, 724 S.E.2d 568, 576, disc. review denied , 366 N.C. 235, 731 S.E.2d 413 (2012) (cleaned up). ΒΆ 11 When an at-will employee brings a wrongful discharge claim upon the theory of a violation of public policy, notice pleading is insufficient.
While no physical injury is required, Ruark , 327 N.C. at 304, 395 S.E.2d at 97, North Carolina courts have consistently reiterated that the plaintiff's emotional distress must be severe in order to recover under this tort. See id. (explaining that "mere temporary fright, disappointment or regret will not suffice"); see also Pierce v. Atl. Grp., Inc. , 219 N.C. App. 19, 32, 724 S.E.2d 568, 577 (affirming the trial court's 12(b)(6) dismissal of the plaintiff's claim where the sole allegation of emotional distress was "serious on and off the job stress, severely affecting his relationship with his wife and family members"), disc. review denied , 366 N.C. 235, 731 S.E.2d 413 (2012). Moreover, absent reasonable foreseeability, the defendant will not be liable for the plaintiff's severe emotional distress.
Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not err by dismissing Plaintiff's claim of libel per quod pursuant to Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion."), disc. review denied, 366 N.C. 235, 731 S.E.2d 413 (2013). We conclude, based on the absence of specific allegations of special damages, that the trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's claim for libel per quod.