IIED, Vicarious Liability, & Proscribing Bad Behavior
Under Washington State laws, may an employer avoid liability for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) by demonstrating preexisting rules proscribing their employees' bad behavior? Here’s my point of view (NOTE: please read our DISCLAIMER before proceeding).
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED)
IIED is tort in Washington State. A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which remedies may be obtained. To succeed on a claim of IIED, a plaintiff must prove the following three elements:
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
IIED is tort in Washington State. A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which remedies may be obtained. To succeed on a claim of IIED, a plaintiff must prove the following three elements:
- extreme and outrageous conduct;
- intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress; and
- severe emotional distress on the part of the plaintiff.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
If a plaintiff brings an IIED claim against an employer on account of the actions of its employee, then once the "underlying tort is established, the employer will be held vicariously liable if the employee was acting within the scope of employment." Id. at 53 (citing Dickinson v. Edwards, 105 Wn.2d 457, 469, 716 P.2d 814 (1986) (hyperlink added) (internal quotation marks omitted).
An employer can defeat a vicarious liability claim by demonstrating that its employee's conduct was (1) intentional or criminal and (2) outside the scope of employment. See id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). However, intentional or criminal conduct is not "per se outside the scope of employment." See id. (internal citations omitted).
PROSCRIBING BAD BEHAVIOR
An employer cannot shield itself from vicarious liability by simply effectuating "a general policy proscribing bad behavior that would otherwise be actionable." Id. Thus, in Washington State, an employer may not avoid liability for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by simply demonstrating preexisting rules proscribing their employees' bad behavior.
An employer can defeat a vicarious liability claim by demonstrating that its employee's conduct was (1) intentional or criminal and (2) outside the scope of employment. See id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). However, intentional or criminal conduct is not "per se outside the scope of employment." See id. (internal citations omitted).
PROSCRIBING BAD BEHAVIOR
An employer cannot shield itself from vicarious liability by simply effectuating "a general policy proscribing bad behavior that would otherwise be actionable." Id. Thus, in Washington State, an employer may not avoid liability for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by simply demonstrating preexisting rules proscribing their employees' bad behavior.
Learn More
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced Washington State Attorney as soon as possible to discuss your case. Please note: the information contained in this article is not offered as legal advice and will not form an attorney-client relationship with either this author or Williams Law Group, PS; please see our DISCLAIMER.
