Tag: intentional infliction of emotional distress

One Man’s ‘Outrage’ Is Another’s Petty Annoyance: Federal Court Tackles Promissory Fraud and Intentional Infliction Tort in Law Firm-Associate Spat

img_2052-3An Illinois Federal court expands on the contours of the IWPCA, promissory fraud, the employee vs. independent contractor dichotomy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) tort in Lane Legal Services v. Le Brocq, 2016 WL 5955536,

The plaintiff law firm (“Firm”) sued a former associate (“Associate”) when he left to open his own law shop.  The Firm claimed the Associate stole firm business records, hacked into Firm computers and breached a written employment agreement.  The Associate fired back with multiple counterclaims against the Firm including ones for unpaid compensation under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq., fraud, and IIED.

IWPCA Claim

The Court denied the Firm’s motion to dismiss the Associate’s IWPCA count.  The IWPCA requires an employer to pay final compensation to a separated employee no later than the next regularly scheduled payday.  Independent contractors, in contrast to employees, aren’t covered by the IWPCA.

The key question when deciding whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor is the level of control exerted over the plaintiff.  The more autonomy a plaintiff has in performing his job functions, the more likely he is deemed an independent contractor and not subject to the IWPCA.

Associate attorneys are generally considered employees under the IWPCA.  While the Associate here had a unique relationship with the Firm in the sense he was entitled to a share of the Firm’s fees, the Court ultimately found the Associate was an employee under the statute as the Firm could still dictate the details of the Associate’s legal work. 

‘Promissory’ Fraud

The Court found the Associate alleged enough facts for his fraud counterclaim to survive the Firm’s motion to dismiss.  In Illinois, a common law plaintiff must plead (1) a false statement of material fact, (2) knowledge or belief by the speaker that a statement is false, (3) intent to induce the plaintiff to act, (4) action by the plaintiff in reliance on the statement, and (5) damages.

Where fraud is predicated on forward-looking/future statements, the claim is a non-actionable “promissory fraud.”  An exception to this rule lies where the fraudulent conduct is part of a scheme to defraud – an exception that governs where there is a pattern of deceptive conduct by a defendant.  As few as two broken promises can amount to a scheme of defraud although that is not the norm. (**6-7).

The court found that the Associate’s allegations that the firm falsely stated it supported him “leaving the nest” and starting his own firm knowing it would later retaliate against him for doing so was factual enough to beat the Firm’s motion to dismiss.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

The Court dismissed the associate’s intentional infliction claims finding that the Firm’s conduct, while possibly vindictive, still wasn’t objectively extreme and outrageous enough to sustain an IIED action.

An IIED plaintiff must show: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) the defendant’s intent to inflict severe emotional distress or knowledge that there was a high probability his conduct would inflict such distress, and (3) the conduct caused severe emotional distress.  Whether conduct rises to the level of extreme and outrageous is judged on an objective standard based on the facts of a given case and must be more than insults, threats, indignities, annoyances or petty trivialities.  To be actionable, the conduct must be “unendurable by a reasonable person.”

Illinois courts especially disfavor applying the IIED tort to employment settings since nearly every employee could conceivably have a claim based on everyday work stressors.

The Court found that the Firm’s challenged actions – filing a frivolous suit and bad-mouthing the associate to regulatory bodies – while inappropriate and bothersome, didn’t amount to extreme and outrageous conduct that would be unbearable to a reasonable person.  As a result, the Court dismissed the associate’s IIED claim.

Take-aways:

(1) A plaintiff can qualify as an employee under the IWPCA even where he shares in company profits and performs some management functions.  If the employer sufficiently controls the manner and method of plaintiff’s work, he likely meets the employee test;

(2) While promissory fraud normally is not actionable, if the alleged fraud is part of a pattern of misstatements, a plaintiff may have a viable fraud claim – even where there is as few as two broken promises;

(3) A colorable intentional infliction claim requires a showing of extreme and outrageous conduct that go beyond harsh business tactics or retaliatory conduct.  If the conduct doesn’t demonstrate an overt intention to cause mental anguish, it won’t meet the objective outrage standard.

 

Attorney’s Intrusion on Seclusion and Cyberstalking Claims Against ‘Above the Law’ Blog Dismissed – IL ND

AS702193_Universal_11x14

In Huon v. Breaking Media, LLC, 2014 WL 6845866 (N.D.Ill. 2014), an Illinois attorney sued law blog Above the Law (ATL) and womens’-interest blog Jezebel.com, for reporting on the plaintiff’s arrest and subsequent trial on sexual assault and witness intimidation charges.

The plaintiff was criminally charged after he met a woman responding to a Craigslist ad where the plaintiff claimed he was a talent scout for a modeling agency.  (Now that doesn’t sound sketchy at all!!) (Cough.)

While the sex assault charge was pending, the plaintiff was separately accused of witness tampering.  The plaintiff was eventually acquitted of both charges after a three-day trial.

Plaintiff sued the two blogs after they published articles discussing the charges’ underlying allegations and the eventual trial result.

The plaintiff claimed the various blog articles and some hostile user/reader comments to the articles impugned his integrity causing him to lose clients. The plaintiff sued for various privacy tort and cyberbullying claims and the blog defendants moved to dismiss all counts. The Northern District dismissed most of the plaintiff’s claims.

Rules/Reasoning:

Intrusion on Seclusion

To state a claim for this tort, the plaintiff must allege (1) an unauthorized intrusion or prying into a plaintiff’s seclusion; (2) the intrusion is highly offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person; (3) the matters upon which the intrusion occurred were private; and (4) the intrusion caused anguish and suffering.

Prototypical examples of this tort include opening a person’s mail, searching someone’s wallet or safe and reviewing a person’s banking information. *14.

The court found that Plaintiff’s intrusion on seclusion claim based on user comments to the defendants’ article were protected by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)(CDA), a statute that immunizes websites that simply republish information supplied by third parties.

Since the user comments – while offensive – couldn’t be attributed to the defendants under the CDA, the intrusion claim failed.  The court noted that in relation to the readers who posted comments on the blog articles, the defendants were simply “online information systems” that are not publishers under the CDA (see 47 U.S.C. 230(f).

Plaintiff’s argument that the blog defendants “incited” offensive user comments also failed. The court found that a website doesn’t incite unlawful comments simply by providing a forum for content. In addition, both defendants had detailed written policies that outlawed defamatory comments. Taken together, these facts defeated plaintiff’s “incitement” arguments. **4-5

The Court also dismissed the intrusion claim since the plaintiff at most alleged irresponsible (“shoddy”) journalism practices. He didn’t plead that either defendant pried into his personal affairs or violate any of his physical boundaries – an indispensable aspect of the intrusion tort. *14.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

This claim also failed.  An intentional infliction plaintiff must demonstrate (1) extreme and outrageous conduct that goes beyond all bounds of decency in a civilized community, (2) the defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress on the plaintiff or know there was a high probability that the conduct would cause severe emotional distress; and (3) the conduct must in fact cause severe emotional distress.

Where intentional infliction is premised on published statements, if those statements don’t rise to the level of defamation, they necessarily can’t meet the even higher extreme and outrageous standard. *15

Here, the claims against the Jezebel blog defendants didn’t rise to the level of libel or extreme and outrageous conduct since the Jezebel posts were protected by the fair reporting privilege and because some of the content consisted of opinions, not facts.

But plaintiff did state a colorable intentional infliction claim against ATL for falsely reporting that plaintiff was charged with sexual assault twice (instead of once). 

ATL’s false statement that plaintiff had multiple sex assault arrests was defamatory per se – a false statement imputing the commission of a crime – plaintiff adequately alleged a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against ATL (as well as defamation).

Take-aways:

– Intrusion on Seclusion requires physical invasion of the plaintiff’s space or private domain;

– An online republisher isn’t responsible for provocative reader comments where it has written policies that outlaw offensive content;

– Inaccurate reporting doesn’t rise to the level of intrusion on seclusion or intentional infliction of emotional distress;