In Illinois, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress involves three elements: that the actor's conduct was extreme and outrageous; that the actor intended to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that there was at least a high probability that his conduct would have caused such distress; and that the conduct in fact caused severe emotional distress. Sun v. Xu, 99 F.4th 1007, 1013 (7th Cir. 2024). The tort does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.

For the district court's rulings on summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law, we view that evidence in the light most favorable to him and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Navratil v. City of Racine, 101 F.4th 511, 516 (7th Cir. 2024) (for summary judgment); Sun v. Xu, 99 F.4th 1007, 1013 (7th Cir. 2024) (for judgment as a matter of law).

True, Styczynski and Cerda were acting in their capacity as police officers, and courts have found that the extreme and outrageous nature of challenged conduct may arise from defendant's “abuse of some position that gives him authority over the plaintiff or the power to affect the plaintiff's interests.” Sun v. Xu, 99 F.4th 1007, 1013 (7th Cir. 2024) (quoting Schweihs v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 77 N.E.3d 50, 63, 2016 IL 120041, ¶ 52 (2016); see, e.g., Brown v. City of Chicago, 633 F.Supp.3d 1122, 1135, 1172 (N.D. Ill. 2022) (denying summary judgment on an IIED claim under Illinois law where a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant police detective fabricated court-reported statements placing the plaintiff at the scene of an arson that killed two people.) Illinois courts have held, however, that a police officer arresting a non-resisting citizen in a gratuitous and humiliating manner, even where the arrest conduct involves a constitutionally suspect use of force, does not constitute outrageous or extreme conduct.

To state an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under Illinois law, a claimant must allege that the conduct in question was truly extreme and outrageous; that the actor intended to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that there was at least a high probability that his conduct would have caused such distress; and that the conduct in fact caused severe emotional distress. Sun v. Xu, 99 F.4th 1007, 1013 (7th Cir. 2024) (citing Schweihs v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 77 N.E.3d 50, 63 (Ill. 2016)). Liability exists only when the alleged conduct “has been 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.” Id. (citing McGrath v. Fahey, 533 N.E.2d 806, 809 (Ill. 1988)). Plaintiff here does not allege any act on the part of any Defendant that could be characterized as extreme or outrageous; nor does she allege facts tending to suggest an intent on the part of any Defendant to cause her severe emotional distress.

must allege that (1) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) the defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that there was at least a high probability that her conduct would inflict severe emotional distress; and (3) the defendant's conduct did cause severe emotional distress. Sun v. Xu, 99 F.4th 1007, 1013 (7th Cir. 2024).