infliction of emotional distress the two issues presented for review one is whether the circuit court erred in granting defend its motion to dismiss points of second amended complaint based on the court's opinion th think first referring to the first issue as far as why we believe it's not bothered by don't know workers compensation act i think a few key facts would be helpful quinta mr schroeder began working for defendant in two thousand and eight he works through two thousand and ten and chicago in marysville accounting inventory for quien es and quitting retail stores defended provides in the toy services for businesses in chicago and around the that point that was prior to going to marysville so what you're referring to were events where he talked about quitting and then he he was persuaded to state that was prior to this long commute but didn't what america was so he had an idea about but i would say certainly if you do it every day and he wasn't aware they were going to be working till three am part of that so it was more than just a two and a half hours each way which i think is substantial and i think having some knowledge of it and actually doing it every day there's certainly a difference but i think there's also other key facts that he wasn't expecting to work till three am as we stayed in the complaint it was not unusual for him to work twenty hours a day every one key condition of the commute and but i would say the other conditions are twenty hours a day the need for him to sleep on the floor because of that you know sleep on the office two or four days a week i would say significant that well let me if i can just focus on the the workers comp issue first if there's no other question at this time the the issue is that they use is either physical or mental or physical injury causes a mental problem or a sentimental that mental issue causes a permanent mental issue as well as the brief that on monday february twenty second two thousand and ten plaintiff though they strongly exhausted and it was quoting him that his safety in the safety of his coworkers were of no concern to his supervisors went events in a letter of resignation to defendant so that certainly the exhaustion is is not not in dispute but we dispute is that that it causes a physical mental kind of condition and the two cases that defendant revise on i think a very different and very distinguishable the one case they rely on is met rock which was a flight attendant and the flight attendant while she was on during the flight she was physically attacked that's certainly very different a knock on effects were gradually over time and it took over a year before he he decides that he can no longer deal with this exhaustion and the second case they cite the city of springfield that that was a that we're not obliging any permanent disability we are saying a severe emotional distress that we know we're not complain that we saying that the exhaustion was permanent so i think that's the worker's comp cases that refer to psychic psychological injuries and injuries starting from the pathfinder case which is one of the critical cases in the line of psychological injuries they all talk about a permanent the physical mental or the psychological or mental mental because one we don't have any sudden a sad story an injury and two we do not have permanent psychological injury to the circuit  is that there is the  are elements and no facts in the complaint that make no reference at all to retaliate so weak as far as that so our intentional infliction of emotional distress we can show is very claim depends upon whether the tort claim is inextricably inextricably linked to a civil rights violation such that there is no independent basis for the action we believe are facts as follows for it the intentional infliction  the manager mcneil who's making who's and management meetings and conference calls he's first he says if the dr doesn't get rid of him the jungle from gary will it's clear that and then every monthly meeting he's constantly says or does but from that improper use of a position of power which gives him the ability to ever see affect the plaintiff's interests so i think that i think we the facts so only support bad and in addition on the curb this case was about comments made on improper comments made on the radio to a to a man and his family and what it's basically one occurrence so i would say if you compare the facts to the clear just facts are facts are much stronger we not only have  every month he's telling his management the same thing so we believe our steps are much stronger and it's only abuse so we too have to revert to say some time for a better i just want to point out i think the wrong facts are very your name again stephanie surely may please the court in this case is very simple under the facts the ledge plaintiffs cannot and has not state because it's not preempted by the wrong workers compensation act because of injuries not compensable under the act and second that he can state a claim under the old that it's not preempted by the owner human rights act i'm sorry because you can properly suffered extreme and outrageous emotional distress if you saying that his injury is not permanent and here whether or not the injury is the temporary exhaustion or the temporary exhaustion caused him to suffer emotional distress if he's claiming that it's the temporary exhaustion the runnion case in addition to talking about whether or not there was a permanent see issue they also addressed that on the job stress in of itself is not a disease and then this leads us into the third argument that plaintiff here has pledged nothing more than on the job strasse which is closed and this alleged and your temporary exhaustion or emotional distress now that being a case that's not extreme and outrageous conduct is a matter of three major guiding legal principles the first that the illinois supreme court has said that emotional distress is compensable under the act the second is that the circuit the circuit court correctly determined that plaintiff here suffered a physical mental trauma but he was work so hard that he got this exhaustion which cost him the emotional distress and that is the crux of this claim if you will is based on the allegations from his of his complaint and then third as i'm just kind of you brought up the non non traumatic the injuries mental injury occurred under what and when three circumstances are met first that the mental that the mental disorder rose in a situation of greater dimensions from the day to day emotional strain and tension which all employees must experience second of the conditions exist in reality from an injective from objective standpoint and third the employment conditions as compared with the non employment conditions where the impetus for causing the mental them and after he complained about those names after he complained he was brought back and when he was he was retaliated against in various ways by being put on clearly working the sign working assignments having to work long hours no one was giving  help those types of things so what he's essentially reading and what was to run his complaint is that he was suffered sexual orientation harassment and then after that he was retaliated against so based on those allegations it's clear that he's trying to recycle his time bar retaliation and sexual orientation harassment allegations and used them as hit unintentional function of emotional distress in which he can not do this case the allegations here are very similar to those in guys versus to go beyond the bounds of human decency this case is very similar to the miller vs equitable life assurance case where in that case the employee for three and a half years claims that she was subjected to the floodgates would open and we would have employees in here in the circuit court every day mistaking it for motional distress it's clear that here the court has properly ruled that the complaint should be dismissed questions prejudiced if there's no further questions but if you think you like the old apples and oranges certainly we all can experience emotional distress and severe emotional distress and it doesn't necessarily mean permanency it could last for a day or two and i think the general  hour commute each way the twenty hour workdays that needing to to spend four days a week to sleep in the office that all caused exhaustion and emotional distress that he said after a year he says i can't take this distinction between severe emotional stress can exist independently and when it's not permanent just one other point as far as a met someone would make some of a case where they did find that the  the toy action was independent from the human rights act case and that was a sexual harassment situation where there was also a basis for it there was touching there was a basis for an independent battery we would say very clear independent cause of action of the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress that has nothing to do with retaliation and in the next movie case the good complaint makes a lot of reference to the sexual harassment which was it under like human right set and so we believe our stats are stronger the next moment with a big in that case a supreme court despite that you can't have an independent cause of action even though there might be some connection or some relation to be an initial action with  it's not it's not the focus it is his being gay the focus is you know we want to get rid of them we're going to we're going to make it is as difficult as possible every month he's telling his managers don't help them so on a monthly basis  of the repetition there's no reference on a monthly basis to anything that has to do with with him being gay based we respectfully assert that when you know right most favorable to the plaintiff at this stage to dismiss the composed with the numbers ship of justice simon who could not be here this morning he will participate in the opinion in order that we enter i'm sure he'll be