188 Conn. App. 183
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Rider (minor) was a Boy Scout in Essex Troop 12 and allegedly was bullied by another scout; his father John requested leaders intervene and then attended meetings to monitor treatment.
- Committee chair Darwyn Azzinaro sent a letter barring Rider from troop meetings and events, stating John’s presence disrupted the troop.
- Plaintiffs sued the troop chair and Boy Scouts of America for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); defendants moved to strike for failure to plead extreme and outrageous conduct.
- Plaintiffs filed a revised complaint adding that Rider has autism spectrum disorder, required school accommodations, and describing repeated bullying and only limited disciplinary response by the troop.
- Trial court struck the revised complaint as legally insufficient on the IIED element of extreme and outrageous conduct; plaintiffs did not plead further and judgment entered for defendants.
- On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed, holding the alleged expulsion and related conduct—even given Rider’s vulnerability and defendants’ authority—did not exceed the bounds of civilized decency required for IIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allegations sufficiently plead extreme and outrageous conduct for IIED | Expelling Rider (and doing so to punish John) was intended to cause severe emotional harm and, given Rider’s autism and vulnerability, the conduct was extreme | The expulsion and limited disciplinary responses were hurtful but ordinary disputes/discipline that do not cross bounds of decency | Struck: allegations do not meet "extreme and outrageous" threshold |
| Whether defendants abused their authority over a vulnerable minor to elevate ordinary insults into IIED | Defendants were in position of authority and knew Rider’s special needs; failure to protect and false reason for expulsion abused that authority | Even if authority existed, no coercive, degrading, or prolonged abusive conduct was alleged to transform insults into IIED | Held: authority plus vulnerability insufficient without abusive mechanics or extreme conduct |
| Whether failure to remedy bullying (or inadequate remedy) can constitute IIED | Inadequate remediation and suspension-only response amounted to conduct beyond tolerable limits toward a vulnerable child | Efforts (notification, suspension) show some remedial action; failure to fully remedy is not by itself extreme conduct | Held: inadequate efforts, without more, do not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct |
| Whether the manner/reasons for expulsion (false reason) render the action humiliating enough for IIED | Expelling Rider for a false stated reason (to punish John) was humiliating and intended to cause distress | The expulsion letter did not use harsh or humiliating language; false pretext alone is not intolerable conduct | Held: false pretext and ordinary expulsion mechanics do not meet IIED standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400 (1999) (sustained IIED where school allegedly created a two‑year "place of fear")
- Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205 (2000) (offensive treatment of teacher insufficient for IIED absent extreme conduct)
- Dollard v. Board of Education, 63 Conn. App. 550 (2001) (concerted workplace pressure and public admonishment did not meet IIED standard)
- Bass ex rel. Bass v. Miss Porter’s School, 738 F. Supp. 2d 307 (D. Conn. 2010) (student’s expulsion, despite prior ridicule for disability, insufficient for IIED)
- Rudis v. National College of Education, 548 N.E.2d 474 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (insults and reputational harm, without abusive mechanics or coercion, do not rise to extreme and outrageous conduct)