Anderson v. Bristol, Inc.
936 F. Supp. 2d 1039
S.D. Iowa2013Background
- Plaintiff Administrator sues Emerson entities, Bielen, and Rossman in diversity for ten claims including wrongful death (Count VII) and contract/intentional tort theories.
- Emerson’s Sick Leave Policy, Absences & Attendance Policy, and at-will disclaimer/policy were alleged to form a unilateral contract and govern termination.
- Anderson worked at Emerson from 1999 to 2009; a Last Chance Agreement and an at-will employment framework were in play.
- Anderson’s 2009 leave for alcoholism preceded late July 2009 death; he was hospitalized and terminated around July 30, 2009 after several communications with Rossman and Bielen.
- Plaintiff asserts Defendants caused or contributed to Anderson’s suicide; autopsy listed death as accident with potential causation issues.
- Court grants MSJ I as to wrongful death (assuming suicide but finding causation unsupported) and MSJ II as to intentional interference with contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress; breach of contract remains pending for briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the death a suicide and causation proven? | Plaintiff contends death was suicide caused by Defendants’ conduct. | Defendants contend no causation evidence supports suicide or its linkage to their actions. | wrongful death claim granted to limit causation issues; no sufficient causation shown for jury. |
| Does Sick Leave Policy create a unilateral contract? | Plaintiff asserts Sick Leave Policy is a definite unilateral contract. | Defendants argue policy may be ill-defined and subject to disclaimer/alteration. | Court presumes unilateral contract for purposes of analysis; superior evidence required to prove breach later. |
| Can defendants be liable for intentional interference with contract or at-will employment? | Plaintiff claims defendants exceeded privilege and harmed Anderson. | Defendants acted within qualified privilege; no third-party tortfeasor. | MSJ II granted for Count II (intentional interference with contract) as to Bielen and Rossman. |
| Is the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress viable? | Plaintiff asserts outrageous conduct caused severe distress. | Defendants argue conduct not outrageous and causation lacking. | MSJ II granted as to Count IV (IIED) due to lack of outrageous conduct and causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Cent. Iowa Health Sys., 766 N.W.2d 787 (Iowa 2009) (causation standard for medical/psych issues; expert needed for medical causation)
- Wegener v. Johnson, 527 F.3d 687 (8th Cir.2008) (four-factor test for Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions in 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures)
- Nw. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Illinois Nat’l Bank, 221 F.Supp.2d 1000 (S.D.Iowa 2002) (judicial discretion under LR 56; progressive sanctions for rule violations)
- Anderson v. Viking Pump Div., Houdaille Indus., Inc., 545 F.2d 1127 (8th Cir.1976) (summary judgment standard; avoid weighing evidence; determine genuine issues)