John v. Phila. Pizza Team, Inc., 209 A.3d 380

On July 21, 2017 appellant ordered pizza from Domino's; when delivered it was burnt and he returned to the store seeking a refund.
A store employee, Hardip Kaur, refused the refund until appellant deleted a photo, allegedly because her religion forbids being photographed; an argument followed during which Kaur called appellant, an African‑American, a racial slur.
Appellant first filed a pro se complaint that Judge Fox dismissed sua sponte on March 24, 2018 for failure to state a claim; appellant did not appeal that dismissal.
Appellant (with counsel) filed a new complaint on May 11, 2018 asserting negligent hiring/supervision/training, IIED, and NIED; Domino’s filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer relying on Dawson v. Zayre.
On August 31, 2018 the trial court sustained Domino’s preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint; appellant appealed. A later attempt to reinstate/amend after the appeal was void for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the use of a racial epithet in a retail dispute can support an IIED claim	Epithets were severe, repeated, and caused serious emotional harm; Dawson is outdated and courts elsewhere allow IIED claims for racial harassment	Single‑incident name‑calling during a customer dispute is an insult insufficient as "extreme and outrageous" conduct to sustain IIED	Court: Dismissed IIED claim; followed Dawson — epithet during brief quarrel not extreme/outrageous
Whether negligent hiring/supervision/training or NIED claims survive where employee used a racial slur	Domino’s is vicariously liable for employee misconduct and failed to train/supervise; emotional harms suffice	Alleged facts mirror Dawson; being offended by a slur in an argument does not establish these torts	Court: Dismissed these claims as legally insufficient given precedent
Procedural: effect of prior pro se dismissal and later filings	Appellant contended dismissal here was improper under doctrines like collateral estoppel/ law of the case because prior dismissal lacked hearing	Domino’s relied on prior dismissal and Dawson as controlling precedent	Court: Treated August 31, 2018 dismissal as appealable and binding on the merits; later post‑appeal filings were void for lack of jurisdiction; no error in sustaining objections

Dawson v. Zayre Dept. Stores, 499 A.2d 648 (Pa. Super. 1985) (holding a racial epithet used during a brief customer dispute did not constitute "extreme and outrageous" conduct for IIED)
McClease v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 226 F. Supp. 2d 695 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (declining to dismiss IIED claim where complaint alleged continuous racial epithets and a special relationship; distinguished Dawson)
Bell v. Kater, 839 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial‑court post‑appeal orders entered without jurisdiction are void)
Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976 (Pa. Super. 2019) (intermediate appellate court explains its role: it must follow Supreme Court/controlling precedent and not create new law)