213 F. Supp. 3d 1058
N.D. Ind.2016Background
- Plaintiff Ricardo Jimenez attended a CRST driver orientation taught by Al (Al) Thomson in January 2013; an incident occurred during a class demonstration involving Jimenez and a coworker.
- Jimenez alleges Thomson shouted profanities, charged at him, and shoved his fingers into Jimenez’s chest; Thomson denies physical contact and describes only a sharp verbal exchange.
- CRST investigated; a manager concluded there was "some type of contact" but not a push or shove.
- Plaintiffs limited their remaining claims to assault and battery, loss of consortium, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Jimenez moved for partial summary judgment on assault/battery and IIED.
- Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment on the IIED claim as to Jimenez. The Court denied Jimenez’s motion on assault/battery and granted defendants’ cross-motion, dismissing Jimenez’s IIED claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomson committed battery / whether summary judgment for plaintiff on assault and battery is warranted | Jimenez says Thomson intentionally touched/pushed him in the chest, supporting battery and summary judgment | Thomson denies physical contact and asserts his conduct was an attempt to redirect class; factual disputes exist | Denied: material factual disputes (contact and intent) preclude summary judgment on assault/battery |
| Whether Thomson’s conduct supports IIED | Jimenez contends the outburst (and alleged contact) caused severe emotional distress meriting IIED | Defendants argue the conduct was not extreme/outrageous, lacked requisite intent, and did not cause severe distress | Granted for defendants: conduct not extreme/outrageous and plaintiff failed to show severe emotional distress; IIED claim dismissed as to Jimenez |
| Whether alleged momentary, profane supervisory outburst can as a matter of law be IIED | Jimenez relies on assault-accompanying emotional harm and older authority suggesting physical injury exception | Defendants cite authorities holding brief profane tirades or isolated yelling are insufficient for IIED | Court holds momentary, rude/profane conduct is insufficient under Indiana IIED standard |
| Whether CRST liable via respondeat superior for IIED (if Thomson liable) | Jimenez argues employer liability should follow if Thomson liable | Defendants did not need to address because IIED fails against Thomson | Not reached — court dismissed IIED against Thomson, so employer liability not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard) (sets the federal summary judgment standard)
- Mullins v. Parkview Hosp., Inc., 865 N.E.2d 608 (Ind.) (battery elements under Indiana law)
- Curry v. Whitaker, 943 N.E.2d 354 (Ind. Ct. App.) (elements and rigorous standard for IIED in Indiana)
- Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747 (Ind. Ct. App.) (ongoing, severe workplace harassment may support IIED)
- McCreary v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 132 F.3d 1159 (7th Cir.) (isolated yelling not extreme/outrageous for IIED)
- White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So.2d 1205 (La.) (brief profane tirade by supervisor insufficient for IIED)