Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00573/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00573-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 WESTERN DIVISION

PLAINTIFF

ANGELA OWENS

vs. CASE NO. 4:06CV573GH

ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action bringing claims of race and sex discrimination pursuant to

Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, retaliation under Title VII, and outrage under state law.

Defendant Greg Tucker has filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him.

Tucker is alleged to be an employee of defendant Alltel. He is alleged to have

kicked plaintiff on January 20, 2005. 

It is clear that plaintiff’s Title VII claims against Tucker must be dismissed. See

Powell v. Yellow Book USA, Inc., 445 F. 3d 1074, 1079 (8th Cir. 2006) (Title VII addresses

the conduct of employers only and does not impose liability on co-workers).

Under § 1981, plaintiff must have some contractual relationship with Tucker. See

Williams v. Lindenwood Univ., 288 F.3d 349, 355 (8th Cir. 2002) (“ purpose of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981 is to prohibit discrimination in the ‘performance, modification and termination of

contracts’ and to protect ‘the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions

of the contractual relationship.’” ); Lewallen v. Borough of Paulsboro, 180 F. Supp. 2d

615, 619 (D. N.J. 2002) (section 1981 claim requires a contract and denial of a racial

minority’s right to make or enforce the contract). She has not alleged one and therefore

her claim under § 1981 is hereby dismissed.

To establish a claim under the tort of outrage, “plaintiff must demonstrate the

following elements: (1) the actor intended to inflict emotional distress or knew or should

Case 4:06-cv-00573-JMM Document 16 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 3
-2-

have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) the conduct

was “extreme and outrageous,” was “beyond all possible bounds of decency,” and was

“utterly intolerable in a civilized community”; (3) the actions of the defendant were the

cause of the plaintiff's distress; and (4) the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff

was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. “ Crockett v.

Essex, 341 Ark. 558, 563 (2000). Recently the Arkansas Supreme Court stated: “This

court gives a narrow view to the tort of outrage, and requires clear-cut proof to establish

the elements in outrage cases. Merely describing the conduct as outrageous does not

make it so. Clear-cut proof, however, does not mean proof greater than a preponderance

of the evidence. We have taken a strict approach in determining the validity of outrage

claims, and recognized that ‘the tort of outrage should not and does not open the doors

of the courts to every slight insult or indignity one must endure in life.’” Calvary Christian

School, Inc. v. Huffstuttler , – S.W. 3d–, 2006 WL 1779525 ( Ark. June 9, 2006)(citation

omitted).

Courts have found that conduct far more egregious than that alleged by plaintiff

was not sufficient to state a claim for the tort of outrage under Arkansas law. Thus, in

Shepherd v. Washington County, 331 Ark. 480 (1998), the court dismissed the outrage

claim by the spouse of a victim killed by an inmate where the sheriff ignored the violent

nature of the inmate, knew the inmate was an escape risk, but directed the victim, who

was not a certified law enforcement officer, and had a history of failing to control inmates,

to escort the inmate to a private clinic for medical treatment. In Holloman v. Keadle,

326 Ark. 168 (1996) , the court found that an employer’s repeated curses, racial slurs,

degrading remarks and threats of violence against plaintiff were not sufficient to state a

claim for the tort of outrage . In City of Green Forest v. Morse, 316 Ark. 540(1994), the

court found that cursing, anger, accusatory questioning, and threats of arrest could not

sustain an outrage claim. In Smith v. American Greetings Corp. 304 Ark. 596 (1991), the

Case 4:06-cv-00573-JMM Document 16 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 3
-3-

court dismissed an outrage claim where the plaintiff alleged that he was wrongfully

terminated after his shift leader had hit him during a dispute. In Webb v. HCA Health

Services of Midwest, Inc., 300 Ark. 613 (1989), the court found that an employee did not

state a claim for the tort of outrage where a physician made derogatory comments,

unwarranted complaints, and urged that the employee be terminated. 

The Court cannot find that the one incident of Tucker kicking plaintiff is sufficient

to meet the standard for the tort of outrage. One kick, without more, cannot as a matter

of law be considered “extreme and outrageous conduct” which goes “beyond all possible

bounds of decency.”

Accordingly, the motion of Tucker to dismiss is granted. Tucker is hereby

dismissed as a defendant in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of October, 2006

. ___________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-00573-JMM Document 16 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 3