833 F. Supp. 2d 1240
D. Nev.2011Background
- Welder employed as Professor of Pharmacy at University of Southern Nevada from Jan 1, 2002;
- June 2, 2008 contract for five years beginning July 1, 2008;
- Jan 29, 2009 diagnosed with bladder cancer;
- Feb 3, 2009 received reprimand for illness-related absence;
- Apr 2009 requested ADA accommodation; USN responses from Coffman and Wills;
- Aug 31, 2009 remediation plan, campus ban, Nov 16, 2009 termination; termination letter issued Nov 16, 2009; EEOC right-to-sue letter obtained and suit filed Oct 18, 2010; Defendants moved to dismiss Claims 11–13 under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intentional interference with contract viability | Welder asserts Coffman interfered with contract | Coffman acted within employment scope, cannot tortiously interfere with own contract | Interference claim dismissed on scope-of-employment grounds |
| Viability of IIED claims against USN and Coffman | Conduct was extreme and outrageous, causing distress | Acts were personnel management and within employment duties; not extreme | IIED claims dismissed (twelfth and thirteenth) without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanch v. Hager, 360 F.Supp.2d 1137 (D. Nev. 2005) (cannot tortiously interfere with own contract; agents within scope not intervening third parties)
- Alarn v. Reno Hilton Corp., 819 F.Supp. 905 (D. Nev. 1993) (agents acting within employment scope cannot tortiously interfere with employer contracts)
- Janken v. GM Hughes Elec., 46 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (personnel management activities not actionable as IIED unless extreme facts)
- Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 114 Nev. 1, 953 P.2d 24 (Nev. 1998) (extreme and outrageous conduct required for IIED; not met here)
- Alam v. GMAC, 819 F.Supp.2d 909 (D. Nev. 2005) (termination decisions not per se IIED; may relate to discrimination remedies)
- J.J. Indus., LLC v. Bennett, 119 Nev. 269, 71 P.3d 1264 (Nev. 2003) (elements of intentional interference with contract)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings; not mere conclusory statements)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard; show more than mere possibility)