Norman v. General Motors Corp.

United States District Court for the District of Nevada · Torts

TortsIntentional infliction of emotional distressDefamationLoss of consortiumIIEDextreme and outrageous conductabuse of authorityRule 12(c)

Facts

Albert Norman alleged that after twelve years of employment, GM terminated him from his position as a warehouse supervisor after transferring him from Oakland to the Sparks warehouse. He alleged that GM initiated a drug investigation intending to create a situation in which he would be criminally implicated for drug trafficking, and that this conduct caused severe emotional distress. On the defamation claim, Norman alleged GM communicated defamatory material beyond internal corporate personnel, including to the police department's Consolidated Narcotic Unit. Caroline Norman sought loss of consortium even though she and Albert Norman were not married when the underlying events occurred, though they had been cohabiting and later married.

Issue

Whether Albert Norman's pleadings sufficiently stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Nevada law so as to survive GM's Rule 12(c) motion. Also, whether GM was entitled to summary judgment on the defamation claim for lack of publication and on Caroline Norman's loss of consortium claim because no valid marriage existed at the time of injury.

Rule

Under Nevada law, a plaintiff claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress must show: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) intent to cause emotional distress or reckless disregard of that result; (3) severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual or proximate causation. The court initially decides whether conduct may reasonably be regarded as sufficiently extreme and outrageous; where reasonable people may differ, the issue goes to the jury. Conduct may become extreme and outrageous when it involves abuse of a position of actual or apparent authority over another.

🔒

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.

Tara Lopez worked for eight years as a dispatch coordinator for Silver Mesa Freight in Phoenix, Arizona. She alleges that her supervisors knowingly fed false information to security staff to make it appear she was stealing prescription drugs, causing her severe emotional distress, but her complaint never uses the words "extreme and outrageous."

On the employer's motion for judgment on the pleadings, what is the strongest argument for denying the motion on Tara's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim?

Explanation. The majority held that failure to use the phrase "extreme and outrageous" is not fatal if the pleaded facts themselves could reasonably be regarded as meeting that standard. Allegations that an employer knowingly initiated a false criminal-type investigation against an employee were sufficient to survive pleadings review.