Mills v. Sonoco Phoenix
2014 Ohio 366
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Robert Mills, hired in 1995 and employed continuously through corporate changes, worked as a packaging technician supervised by Scott Schindler.
- Mills alleges long‑running age‑based harassment by Schindler (epithets like “old man,” “new blood,” removal from overtime committees) and a March 10, 2011 incident in which Schindler yelled, came close to Mills’s face, threatened termination, spat on him, and later continued yelling in his office.
- Mills claims resulting stress, flashbacks, interrupted sleep, and depression but did not miss work or seek medical treatment; his wife submitted an affidavit repeating his statements.
- Mills sued Sonoco Phoenix and Schindler asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and age discrimination; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the IIED claim.
- On appeal, the court reviewed whether, construing evidence in Mills’s favor, there remained genuine issues as to (1) conduct being extreme and outrageous and (2) whether Mills suffered serious, severe emotional distress caused by defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous to support IIED | Schindler’s verbal abuse, spitting, threats, and repeated harassment were extreme and beyond workplace norms | Conduct, though offensive and inappropriate, did not rise to the high threshold of being "utterly intolerable" or beyond all bounds of decency | Summary judgment affirmed — evidence insufficient to show extreme/outrageous conduct |
| Whether Mills suffered serious, severe emotional distress proximately caused by defendants | Mills experienced flashbacks, interrupted sleep, depression, and fear after the March 10 incident | Mills never sought treatment, missed no work, and presented no competent evidence of severe, debilitating distress | Summary judgment affirmed — no competent evidence of severe emotional distress causally connected to the conduct |
| Admissibility/weight of spouse affidavit | Wife’s affidavit supports Mills’s emotional distress claims | Affidavit is hearsay about statements made to her by Mills and lacks personal observation, so it's not competent summary judgment evidence | Trial court properly discounted the affidavit for Civ.R. 56 purposes |
| Whether any genuine factual dispute precluded summary judgment | Mills points to eyewitness testimony of a heated confrontation and his own symptoms | Defendants identified absence of medical or other competent evidence of severe distress and argued conduct falls short of IIED standard | No genuine issue of material fact on IIED elements — summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (summary judgment burdens and Dresher framework)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (party shifting burdens in summary judgment)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (IIED requires conduct beyond tortious/criminal wrongdoing)
- Ashcroft v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center, 68 Ohio App.3d 359 (elements of IIED)
- Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 (limiting authority cited in Yeager)
- Powell v. Grant Med. Ctr., 148 Ohio App.3d 1 (lay testimony may support serious emotional distress)
- Stafford v. Columbus Bonding Ctr., 177 Ohio App.3d 799 (restating IIED standard)