Kanzler v. Renner

Supreme Court of Wyoming · 1997 · Torts

TortsIntentional infliction of emotional distressQualified immunityWorkplace sexual misconductIIEDoutrageous conductsevere emotional distressworkplace harassment

Facts

Kanzler, a police dispatcher, alleged that over several weeks Renner, a police officer and former friend, repeatedly followed and stared at her, made unwanted advances, and engaged in escalating physical conduct at work. She claimed he grabbed her to dance, pulled her toward him on another occasion, confined her in a dark utility closet, and later rubbed his crotch against her leg. After these incidents, Kanzler became emotionally distraught, could not complete shifts, sought treatment, and was diagnosed by treating and evaluating professionals with conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression. Renner denied wrongdoing, but the case came to the court on summary judgment, so the evidence was viewed in Kanzler's favor.

Issue

Whether Kanzler presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on Renner's alleged workplace sexual misconduct. Whether Renner, a police officer, was entitled to qualified immunity on that state tort claim.

Rule

To recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Wyoming, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct and intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress. On summary judgment, the court first determines whether the conduct could reasonably be regarded as outrageous and whether severe emotional distress could be found; if reasonable persons could differ, those questions go to the jury. In the workplace, factors relevant to outrageousness include abuse of power, repeated incidents or a pattern of harassment, unwelcome non-negligible physical contact, and retaliation for refusing or reporting advances. For qualified immunity in a state tort suit, a peace officer must show that he acted within the scope of his duties, in good faith, reasonably under the circumstances, and in a discretionary rather than ministerial capacity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a shipping office in Tulsa, Nina Patel alleges that over a month her coworker Evan Brooks repeatedly waited outside her work area, stared at her during shifts, twice pulled her into unwanted hugs after she told him to stop, and on the last occasion pressed his body against hers in a storage room. Evan denies everything and moves for summary judgment on Nina's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

How should the court most likely rule on the motion?

Explanation. The majority held that on summary judgment the court first asks whether the conduct may reasonably be regarded as extreme and outrageous. In the workplace, repeated incidents and unwelcome, non-negligible physical contact are important factors. If reasonable persons could differ, the issue goes to the jury, and the court does not resolve credibility disputes about what actually happened.