Title: Fromson v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Fromson v. State (2003-262); 176 Vt. 395; 848 A.2d 344

2004 VT 29

[Filed 02-Apr-2004]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2004 VT 29

                                No. 2003-262

  D. Michael Fromson	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Caledonia Superior Court

  State of Vermont, Department of 	         October Term, 2003
  Corrections and Celeste M. Girrell, 
  Superintendent

  Mark J. Keller, J.

  Sten M. Lium of Law Office of Jay Abramson, St. Johnsbury, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David K. Herlihy, Special
    Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Defendants-Appellees.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ.

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff, D. Michael Fromson, appeals two
  rulings by the Caledonia Superior Court in favor of defendants, Vermont
  Department of Corrections and Celeste M. Girrell, Superintendent of the
  Northeast Regional Correctional Center: (1) grant of defendants' motion for
  summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of
  emotional distress (IIED); and (2) denial of plaintiff's request to amend
  his complaint to add a prima facie tort claim because Vermont has not
  recognized such a tort. We affirm.  
   
       ¶  2.  Plaintiff claims that from July 21, 1999 until mid-October
  1999, defendants "engaged in a campaign to harass, intimidate, and oppress
  the plaintiff, for the purpose of breaking his spirit and rendering him
  unable or unfit or unwilling to continue in his employment."  Plaintiff
  alleges that defendants engaged in this course of conduct in retaliation
  for plaintiff's reporting of several junior officers' complaints that two
  supervisors often reported to work under the influence of alcohol.  In
  support of his allegation, plaintiff claims defendants: (1) filed work rule
  violations against him in bad faith; (2) investigated claims and
  allegations against him in bad faith; (3) discriminatorily altered his work
  schedule; (4) imposed unfair disciplinary action and other punishment; and
  (5) made remarks and insinuations calculated to threaten, harass,
  intimidate, and oppress him.  Because this is an appeal from summary
  judgment we present the facts most favorably to plaintiff, giving him the
  benefit of all reasonable inferences.  Denton v. Chittenden Bank, 163 Vt.
  62, 63,