richards claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress it's not been preempted by the illinois human rights act illinois established a right to policy by a tort for the additional clips in the emotional distress that its citizens should be proof of the intentional infliction of emotional distress often that occur in an employment setting as it does here in name versus the bound to be broader than just simply sexually harassing the a viewer and context that included a pattern of creating an impossible work condition among a complaint namely its asking your stand on unsteady leg latter and in work assignments which were increasing over time to the extent that she can get the job done council can i ask you whether you were arguing that mr bird's actions  actions that inflicted emotional distress and for which us steel is liable absolutely mr burt was her supervisor supervisor for us steel in the last ox and oxygen furnace department and he was authorized day by us steel and was acting within the scope of his employment his but it wouldn't it you know all those incidents are outside the statute of limitations though i think no they are a pattern of conduct that were played there beyond well suppose it just for purposes of argument that you cannot reach back to bird's conduct then we've got you now since the what you describe as well the fairly callous response to her complaints by personnel ran right and what duty do you think the personnel department breach absolutely the duty to a boy making statements and to the to the plaintiff testified that these statements were upsetting to her ms could cheek and told her look you're just going to have to adjust  rough work environment she also said i've looked at the circumstances of his ripping open your jacket and i made the determination that that's simply his effort to look at a pocket that was sold on the inside of your jacket for a lady the sitting there crying asking for assistance asking for understanding that was and in mary richards opinion very insulting very troubling  that statement in that bastion for an employer this crying she knew she was in a weakened emotional condition she knew this was a pattern of conduct that occurred at the employer's hands she knew that this would cause you know or be likely to c extreme upset to claim that all he was trying to look at it was a pocket that you saw it on the inside of the jacket which is when she admits that he ripped it open and said i like that something h r s supervisor and needed knowing all of that other harassed bases for bringing the motion we had filed over the motion for three reasons statute of limitations argument the fact that they had not you know sufficiently played an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and finally the one that it was granted on which was that the matter was preempted as a result of the illinois human rights act that this  case was appropriately we believe the motion for summary judgment was appropriately granted on that basis because it's the intention of later motion to stress  with these facts standing alone state a claim or allow the point to prove it that if you went to trial there is some independent common law tort like intentional infliction of emotional distress so the fact that they the factual allegations overlap with sexual harassment is not really part of test right well i think you do have to look at that the fact that there was one in the same but in addition i would agree that that the you have to look at the duty and where the duty to not do something comes from and in this case the duty of the employer in a steel to refrain correctly ruled that the case was preempted well that there may be some duties i think that's right that emanate from title seven a good employer is duty to investigate an allegation that a coworker supervisor engaged in harassment but it's if you just look at the allegations of the supervisors like byrd which may there may be limitations problem with that that's true but it seems like the district court said well i can decide this because without looking to whether or not those allegations amount to extreme and outrageous conduct and therefore would state an emotional distress claim but that is the test right yes that's correct but i'm in this case they used the allegations with respect to the intentional infliction they were basically three bases which mr richards claims that there was intentional collection of the motion of distress and two of those related to comments made by the labor relations personnel during these meetings and one related to an incident involving a mr place so at that time she was away from the person mr byrd who she claims that she you know she had the problem with in fact in her grief at page sixteen she admits that her difficulties began when she moved to the all male environment and that basic access didn't furnace department where she was the only female she said from day one she was regarded differently at the time that  kitschy and made their statements she was she was no longer there in that department you know around mr byrd so the issues you know and after those meetings the labor people met with mr byrd talked about you know the issues what he needed to do to to to not have problems in the future and told him  should just stay away from her she wasn't in the department any more she should be left alone so the idea that they did nothing just simply not correct what duty does the employer have to a complaining employee under the circumstances independent of the statutory duty i think the duty comes from the illinois human rights act i don't think there is any other duty to say that she's crying and someone says you probably need to get counseling or see a psychiatrist i don't see that that is extreme and outrageous kind let me ask you this is it your position we shouldn't consider any of the allegations that are connected to mr richards claims of sexual harassment when we consider whether he is established the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress i think that she's only alleged three i'm not sure information is setting the stage as providing some history in terms of the relationship in this case the only defendant in the case is us steel missile birds were in the case that might be a different  that if if there is a viable i e d claim here it would be impossible to try without providing some of that background right about the need but i thought it was pretty well established in illinois that  that the under state law the employer is not strictly liable for torts that are equivalent to sexual harassment that intentional mistreatment of subordinates that's that's correct playing you know was filed after she was out at the dealership department they met with with her and talked to her about it you know labor relations personnel are not acting tortious lee if they challenge a complaint for example is false or test the credibility of it that's correct i mean  adversarial relationship in essence to begin with right ye an illinois supreme court case talks about the abuse of position in graham case which is akin cited to the in palace power of power in the relationship is one which has let the courts to look in employment situation because of that imbalance of power that exists and how does that fit in with the question of respondents superior a liability in the sexual harassment commentary in this instance we're talking again about the intentional infliction of emotional distress and s this gentleman was acting as a supervisor hired by crew of us steel he was acting within the scope his employment his actions although serving the master may have deviated in part against their policy but clearly was within the scope of his authority and he was conducting the actions are personal to us steel i think my time is coming up well let me tell you also that the threat of the job loss is particularly poor see