Durham v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oklahoma, Inc.
2011 OK 45
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Durham, a former McDonald's employee, sues McDonald's Restaurants of Oklahoma for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- The alleged incident occurred June 1, 2006, when a supervising manager denied three requests to take anti-seizure medication and used a slur toward Durham.
- Durham was sixteen at the time; he fled from work crying and did not return.
- McDonald's moved for summary judgment arguing the federal ADA ruling resolved the extreme/outrageous and severe elements via issue preclusion.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals, reversed the summary judgment, and held the IIED elements must be evaluated under state law, with gatekeeper review of extreme/outrageous conduct and severity through jury question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA-based issue preclusion bars IIED claims. | Durham contends the federal ruling did not resolve the IIED elements; preclusion does not apply to state-law outrage. | McDonald's argues the ADA ruling resolved the extreme/outrageous and severe elements, preventing relitigation. | Not bar by issue preclusion; federal adjudication did not resolve the IIED elements. |
| Whether the manager's conduct was extreme and outrageous. | The use of a racial slur toward a minor employee denying medication is extreme and outrageous. | Conduct was not extreme or outrageous as a matter of law. | Conduct may be extreme and outrageous; jury to decide. |
| Whether the plaintiff's emotional distress was severe. | Durham's described reactions were severe and beyond mere hurt feelings. | Severe distress not established as a matter of law from the federal record. | Questions of severity for the jury; evidence supports potential severe distress. |
Key Cases Cited
- Computer Publications, Inc. v. Welton, 2002 OK 50 (Okla. 2002) (sets threshold for severity as required for IIED; emotional distress must be beyond mere annoyance)
- Kraszewski v. Baptist Med. Ctr. of Okla., Inc., 1996 OK 141 (Okla. 1996) (extreme and outrageous conduct defined; need for community decency threshold)
- Miller v. Miller, 1998 OK 24 (Okla. 1998) (gatekeeper test for extreme and outrageous conduct; jury determines ultimate issue)
- Nealis v. Baird, 1999 OK 98 (Okla. 1999) (issue preclusion requirements clarified in Oklahoma)
- State ex rel. Tal v. City of Okla. City, 2002 OK 97 (Okla. 2002) (elements and application of issue preclusion in Oklahoma)
- Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79 (Okla. 1999) (context on federal question jurisdiction and disability definitions)
- Copeland v. Tela Corp., 1999 OK 81 (Okla. 1999) (summary judgment standard and evidentiary review in Oklahoma)
- Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1936) (federal question jurisdiction framework)