# Retherford v. AT & T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc.

> Utah Supreme Court · December 9, 1992 · 201 Utah Adv. Rep. 21

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582657

## Case

- **Full name:** Debra S. RETHERFORD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AT & T COMMUNICATIONS OF the MOUNTAIN STATES, INC.; Cathy Bateson; Louise Johnson; Vickie Randall; And Doe I Through Doe X, Defendants and Appellees
- **Court:** Utah Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 9, 1992
- **Citations:** 201 Utah Adv. Rep. 21; 844 P.2d 949; 8 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 405; 142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2668; 1992 Utah LEXIS 120; 1992 WL 361919
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Howe
- **Judges:** Zimmerman, Howe, Hall, Durham, Stewart
- **Cited by:** 117 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582657

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a single indignity may not amount to outrageous conduct sufficient to support IIED claim, whereas an ongoing pattern of the same would
- discussing courts that appear to have distinguished between situations where a defendant has misused authority under a collective bargaining agreement to torment the plaintiff and situations where a defendant has inflict, ed the distress through conduct that is purely personal…
- finding that “conduct generally labeled sexual harassment is outrageous and intolerable and, when performed with the requisite intent, satisfies the elements of the tort ... ”
- recognizing but not wholly adopting the continuing violations theory to common law claims

## Opinion text

HOWE, Associate Chief Justice:
(concurring with reservation).
I concur in the majority opinion with the following reservation:
I would not reach the question whether Retherford can pursue a tort action for discharge in violation of public policy and also a claim for breach of her collective bargaining agreement’s just-cause provision. It is not necessary to resolve this issue because assuming such tort cause of action exists, it is preempted by UADA, as explained in the majority opinion.
The majority holds that Retherford could pursue both a tort action and a contract claim, except for the preemption. Not only would this be duplicative, at least in part, but it possibly may violate the collective bargaining agreement, which requires that all grievances arising out of or resulting from the dismissal of a regular employee must be arbitrated. I therefore prefer to reserve judgment on this issue.
STEWART, J., concurs in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582657. Public record. Not legal advice.