Gillians v. Vivanco-Small
15 A.3d 1200
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Gillians, a social work supervisor and union steward, alleged in her second substituted complaint that she faced a conspiracy by supervisors and subordinates to force withdrawal of a grievance and to terminate her employment.
- The alleged conspiracy involved Williams, Mysogland, Simpson, and others who reviewed her history, issued a negative performance evaluation, and threatened demotion/termination.
- Alleged retaliation for filing the grievance included hostile conduct, false accusations of bias, and selective enforcement of reprimand exemptions for others.
- Defendants allegedly offered rehire at a lower position after the department reversed the termination decision, and the resulting distress allegedly caused her to resign for reduced income.
- Plaintiff claimed the conduct was intentional and caused severe emotional distress; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the conduct was not extreme or outrageous.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, and on appeal the court affirmed, finding the conduct did not meet the high threshold for IIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous for IIED | Gillians contends the conduct, including conspiracy to terminate, was extreme | Williams, Mysogland, Simpson, and others argue conduct was distressing but not beyond decency | No; conduct did not exceed all bounds of decency to sustain IIED |
| Whether termination conspiracy, even if actionable, meets the outrageousness threshold | Gillians asserts the termination scheme was outrageous | Conspiracy to terminate, though distressing, is not per se outrageous | No; termination efforts, though distressing, did not reach outrageous level |
| Whether the racial/gender-targeting assertion creates a triable issue | Affidavit cursory assertion of African-American female targeting | Plaintiff failed to provide evidentiary support for discrimination claim | Not considered; insufficient evidence to create genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Tracy v. New Milford Public Schools, 101 Conn. App. 560 (Conn. App. 2007) (conduct not outrageous; pattern of harassment not extreme)
- Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205 (Conn. 2000) (conduct not outrageous; condescension, investigations, and suspension not extreme)
- Parsons v. United Technologies Corp., 243 Conn. 66 (Conn. 1997) (termination, even if wrongfully motivated, not transgressing bounds)
- Dollard v. Board of Education, 63 Conn. App. 550 (Conn. App. 2001) (concerted plan to force resignation not per se outrageous)
- Gagnon v. Housatonic Valley Tourism District Commission, 92 Conn. App. 835 (Conn. App. 2006) (court gate-keeping to assess outrageousness)
- Washington v. Blackmore, 119 Conn. App. 218 (Conn. App. 2010) (standard for summary judgment in IIED context)
- Muniz v. Kravis, 59 Conn. App. 704 (Conn. App. 2000) (conduct must be extreme, beyond all bounds of decency)
- Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205 (Conn. 2000) (not outrageous where it involved conduct such as insults and investigations)