holding that, under New Jersey law, a jury could conclude that a defendant’s use of sexual metaphors and comments toward plaintiff could satisfy the “outrageous conduct” element of an Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, under New Jersey law, a jury could conclude that a defendant’s use of sexual metaphors and comments toward plaintiff could satisfy the “outrageous conduct” element of an Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim.”
- considering employee's evidence that supervisor repeatedly threatened, cursed and embarrassed employee and engaged in process called "root canal" sufficient to show extreme and outrageous behavior
- supervisor repeatedly used abusive and humiliating tactics, including "intense and emotionally painful sessions in which he would berate and demean” the plaintiff through a process nicknamed “root canal,” to force the plaintiff to "either go out on disability or leave the company or to cease the union activity....”
- reversing dismissal of intentional infliction of emotional distress claim where plaintiff suffered from stress, including post-traumatic stress disorder
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Sept. 30, 1996
The petition for rehearing filed by the Appellees in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all other available circuit judges in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied. Judges Cowen and Greenberg would have granted rehearing.