Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger
144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. 2004)
Harassment and IIED damages for the same conduct; the IIED award falls
- In one lineEn una línea
- IIED is a gap-filler: it is unavailable when the gravamen of the complaint is covered by another tort or statutory remedy, even if that claim fails.El IIED es un gap-filler: no procede cuando el núcleo de la queja lo cubre otro tort o un remedio legal, aunque esa otra acción fracase.
- RuleRegla
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress exists only to fill gaps in tort law; where the gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint is really another tort or a statutory claim, IIED cannot be used to avoid the limits of that claim, regardless of whether the other claim succeeds.
- Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
- States the gap-filler rule that is the threshold issue in the Marcus Carter memo: if the gravamen is another claim, IIED is unavailable.
- Procedural posturePostura procesal
- Jury found for the employee on sexual harassment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act and on IIED; the court of appeals affirmed the IIED damages; the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the IIED judgment.
Facts
An employee alleged that her supervisor subjected her to repeated sexual comments and conduct. She sued the employer for sexual harassment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act and for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the same conduct.
Procedural posture
The jury found for her on both theories. The court of appeals affirmed the IIED award. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the IIED judgment.
Issue
Whether an IIED claim may rest on the same conduct that forms the basis of a statutory sexual harassment claim.
Holding
No. IIED is a gap-filler tort; where the gravamen of the complaint is sexual harassment, the statutory remedy governs and IIED is unavailable, whether or not the statutory claim succeeds.
Reasoning
The tort was created to reach egregious conduct that no other remedy addressed. Allowing it to duplicate claims with their own limits (caps, procedures, defenses) would let plaintiffs evade those limits. The court looked at the gravamen of the complaint, found it was harassment, and held that only conduct independent of that claim could support IIED. None was shown.
Rule (own words)
Ask first what the plaintiff is really complaining about. If another claim fits that core, IIED is off the table.
What-ifs
- If the supervisor had also made death threats unrelated to the harassment, that independent conduct could support IIED.
- Draker v. Schreiber applies the same rule where the gravamen is defamation.
Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables
Why does it matter that the other claim might fail?
Was there any room left for IIED?
Apply it to Marcus Carter.
Say the answer out loud before revealing each part. Rate yourself honestly; the case comes back sooner when you miss.Di la respuesta en voz alta antes de revelar cada parte. Califícate con honestidad; el caso vuelve antes si fallas.
Panic kit: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”Kit de pánico: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”