I N T HE CO UR T O F A PP EA LS OF TH E S TA TE OF MI SS I SS I PP I NO. 2013- CA-02109- COA CINDY PETTY AP PE LL AN T

v. BA PT I ST ME MO RI AL HE AL TH CA RE CO RP OR

AT I ON , BA PT I ST ME MO RI AL HO SP I TA L- GO LD EN TR I AN GL E, I NC . , MA RY ELLEN SUMRALL, I NDIVI DUALLY, VANESSA LA FA YE TT E, IN DIV IDU AL LY , AL ICIA GRANT, I NDIVI DUALLY, PAUL CADE, I ND I VI DU AL LY , AN D A LE XA ND RI A B AN KE R, INDI VIDUALLY APPELLEES

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/ 2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LEE J . HOWARD COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUI T COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: P. NELSON SMI TH JR. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: PAUL E. PRATHER MA TT HE W G AR

Y G AL LA GH ER NA TU RE OF TH E C AS E: CI VI L - TO RT S - OT HE R T HA N PE RS ON AL I NJUR

Y A ND PR OP ER TY DA MA GE TRIAL COURT DI SPOSITI ON: GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FA VO R O F D EF EN DA

NT S/AP PE LL EE S DI SP OS I TI ON : AF FI RM ED I N P AR T A ND RE VE RS ED AND REMANDED IN PART – 03/ 10/2015 MO TI ON FO R R EH EA RING FI LE D: MA ND AT E I SS UE D: BEFORE IRVI NG, P. J., ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ. I RV I NG , P. J. , FO R T HE CO UR T : ¶1. After she was terminatedfro m h er em ploym ent as a r egi st er ed nur se at Bap tist Mem ori al Hospi ta l–Gol den Tr iangle I nc. ( BMH-GT) , Ci ndy Petty f il ed a com pla int , i n the Cir cui t Cour

t of Lownd es County, aga ins t BMH- GT; Ba pti st Mem ori al Hea lt

hcareThre e s eparate motio ns for summary j udgme nt we re fi le d. The indi vidua l 1 def endants fi le d a j oint

mot ion; Bapt is t f

il ed an indi vidua l mot ion; and BMH- GT a ls o fi le d an i ndivi dual mot ion. 2 Corpor at ion ( Bapt is t) , BMH-GT’ s par ent cor porati on; Mary Sumra ll , BMH- GT’s dir ec tor of n ursin g; V an es sa L afay ette, directo r of B MH -GT ’s maternal-ch ild d epartmen t; Alicia Grant, BMH-GT’ s a ss is tant di re ct or of nurs ing; Paul Ca de, BMH-GT’ s a dmi nis tr at or; and Al e xandr i aBank e r , BM H- GT ’ s he a d nur s e f or the l abo r - a nd

- e l i ve ry d e partm e nt . BM H- GT and Ba pti st wil l be re fe rr ed t o col le ct ive ly a s BMH- GT, unl es s the co nte xt r equi re s othe rwi se , and al l of

the indi vid uals will be r ef er re d to c oll ec ti vel y as the indi vidua l def endants , unl es s the c onte xt requ ir es spe ci fi c name ide nti fi cati on. BMH- GT and the indi vidua l de fe ndant s f

il ed m oti ons f

or s umm ar

y judgm ent , whic h the ci rc uit court gr ant ed. 1 Cin dy app eals. ¶2. Fo r the reasons discussed later in this op inio n, we affirm in part and reverse in part. FA CT S ¶ 3. Ci ndy wa s e mpl oy e d fo r s i xt e e n ye a r s by BMH-GT as a r e gi s t e r e d nur s e i n B MH
GT’s la bor- and- del ive ry de partm ent . She was an at- wil l em ploye e. On Fe bruary 24, 2010, Cindy s ucc es sf

ull y per for

me d an i nte rna l bim anua l ut er ine ma ss age on a patient who wa s expe ri enc ing s eve re hem orr haging . Dr . J am es Holz haue r, a m edi ca l doc tor em ploye d by BMH-GT, was the pat ie nt’ s tre at ing phys ic ian. ¶4. By le tt er

dat ed Fe bruary 27, 2010, BMH- GT te rm inate d Cindy’ s e mpl oyme nt. The le tt er st at ed that

the bas is for

Cindy’ s te rm inati on wa s that “ther e wa s no phys ic ian’s orde r [instru ctin g C in dy ] to perfo rm [the] pro cedu re [andthe] pro cedu re [was] no t with inTh e r e po rt a l l e ge d that

Ci ndy ha d pe r f

or m e d the pr oc e dur e th a t , a c c or di ng t o B MH
2 GT, wa s out si de of

her sc ope of pra ct ic e a s a

re gis te re d nurs e. The r ec ord r eve al s that

no re pre se ntati ve of

BMH-GT att ende d the heari ng. 3 Mis s. Code Ann. § 71-3- 9 (Re v. 2011)
. 4 3 [Ci ndy’s ] sc ope of

pra ct ic e. ” BMH- GT re port ed t o the Mis si ss ippi Boar d of Nur si ng (Board) that Ci ndy had pe rf orm ed the pr oce dure
. Fol lowi ng a he ar ing, the Boar d conc lude d 2 that “ it is within t

he s cope of [ an] appr opri at el y tr ai ned r egi st er ed nu rse to pe rf orm [an] int er nal bim anua l ut er ine ma ss age per an i nst it uti onal poli cy a ddre ss ing t he e me rgenc y
ma nage me nt of

post par tum hem orr hag[ ing].” Th e Bo ard to okno discip linary action again st

3 Cindy. ¶5. In her compl ai nt, Cindy all ege d: (1) inte nti onal infliction of emot iona l dist re ss , ( 2) neg l i ge nt i nfl ic ti on of e mot iona l di stre ss , ( 3) t ort ious int er fe re nce , and (4) def am at ion. More specifically , Cin dy alleged , amo ng oth er thin gs, th at BM H-G T h ad mad e false statements abo ut h er to th e Bo ard. In their an swe rs , th e d efend ants, w ith th e excep tion of B aptist, adm itte d that

BMH-GT had “ma de a repor t t o the Mis si ss ippi Boar d of Nur si ng with re gar d to t he pr oce dure per for

me d by [Ci ndy] .” The r ec ord doe s not dis cl ose the id entity of the perso n w ho made th e repo rt on BM H-G T’s b ehalf. In their motio ns for summary jud gmen t, BMH-GT and the i ndivi dual def endants col le ct ive ly argue d: ( 1) Ci ndy coul d not pr eva il on her cl ai m of int ent iona l inf

li ct ion of em oti onal dis tr es s be ca

use she coul d not e st abl is h that the ir c on du c t w a s e xtr e m e o r

o utr a ge ou s ; ( 2) C i ndy’ s c l a i mo f n e gl i ge nt

i nf l i c t ion of emotio nal dis tr es s wa s barr ed by the e xcl usi vit y-of -r em edy pr ovis ion of

the Mis si ss ippi Worke rs ’ Com

pens at ion Ac t ( the Act ), or, al te rnati vel y, Ci ndy coul d not e st abl is h that 44

BMH-GT or

the indi vidua l defendants wer e ne gli gent ; ( 3) Ci ndy coul d not pr eva il on her defamatio n claim b ecause she cou ld no t establish that BM H-G T o r the in div idu al defen dan ts
ma de f al se st at em ent s about

he r, and be ca

use any s tate me nts ma de by the de fe ndant s a bout her were pro tected by a qu alified priv ilege; and(4 ) C ind y cou ld no t p revail o n h er tortio usint er fe re nce cl ai m be ca

use Mis si ss ippi does not r ec ogn iz e a ca use of a ct ion f

or t ort ious i nt e r f e r e nc e wi th on e ’ s pr of

e s s i onor car e e r . I n i t s mo t i onfo r

su m m a ry j ud gm e nt , BM H- GT al so ar gued that it

c ould not be hel d l ia

ble f or tor ti ousl y i nte rf

er ing with the em

ploym ent of one of it s own e mpl oyee s. Addit iona ll y, i n the ir summary-

judgm ent mot ion, the indi vidua l defen dan ts argu ed th at Cin dy cou ld n ot p revail o n h er tortio us-in ter fe re n ce claim again st the m be ca

use the ir actio ns were within t

he s cope of the duty the y owed t o BMH-GT, and
we r e pe r f or m e d d ur i ng the c our s e of

Ci ndy’ s e mpl oy m e nt

wi th B MH
- GT
. ¶ 6. In s upport

of the s umm ary-j udg ment mot ions , BMH- GT and the indi vidua l def endants subm itte d exc er

pts f r om the tr ans c r i pt

of Ci nd y’ s de po s i t i on , wh e re the fol lowi ng col loquy t ook pla ce : [ATTORNEY] : Now, t el l m e a bout your re lati onshi p with Mr. Cade
. [CIN DY ]: I do n’t h ave o ne. [AT TO RN EY ]: I mean, y ou kn ow wh o h e is? [CIN DY ]: Yes.
**** [AT TO RN EY ]: Well, is th ere so methin g that he sp ecifically h as do ne to

you that you’ re aware of? [CINDY] : Othe r than he was the la st res ort on the pr oble m s olvi ng, that h e hada chan ce to rectify this mistak e.5   [ATTORNEY] : Okay. Anything e ls e that Mr. Cade did i n con nection with thi s c as e that

you’r e awar e of

? [CINDY] : No, s ir [. ] [N] ot t o my knowl edge
. [ATTORNEY] : Okay. Let ’s ta lk a bout Ms
. Some ra ll [ si c] , who’s a ls o a def endant in thi s lawsui t. Tel l me abou t your relation ship with Ms. S omerall [sic]. [CINDY] : Sam e c once pt. Worke d for her for a ye ar . [ATTORNEY] : Okay. Any part ic ular pr oble ms with her ? [CINDY] : No, s ir
. ** ** [ATTORNEY] : All right. We ll , what i s i t t hat -- what was Ms. Grant’ s rol e i n thi s - - that

you thi nk she did wr ong? [CINDY] : The s am e c once pt. I don’ t t hink t hey - - whe n the y fi re d me , that the y wer e t aki ng int o ac count that what I was presen ting to th em -- that I d id n ot d o an yth ing wro ng .

  [ATTORNEY] : Ok ay. A nd Ms. La fayette . . . what i s i t t hat you thi nk she did wr ong?

** ** [CINDY] : I think s he m ade the wrong de ci si on. [ATTORNEY] : Okay. Now, did you have any per sona l anim osi ty or

dif fi cul ty wi th Mr . Ca de? [CIN DY ]: No
. [AT TO RN EY ]: Ho w ab ou t with Ms. S omerall [sic]? [CINDY] : No.6

[AT TO RN EY ]: Ho w ab ou t with Ms. G rant? [CIN DY ]: I thin k th ere was a little b it o f someth ing betw een M s.

Laf aye tt e and Ms. Grant and I. [ATTORNEY] : Why? [CINDY] : I don’ t know. I j ust fe el li ke maybe they we re pic king on me a l ot. I don’ t know why.

  [ATTORNEY] : Okay. And i t’ s j ust your f ee li ng, but

was the re anything that t hey s ai d spe ci fi ca ll y t o you that ma de you f

ee l t hat the y wer e be ing un- -- som ehow unf ai r t o you? [CIN DY ]: I can’t recall ex actly. I ju st -- I felt the v ibes.
** ** [ATTORNEY] : Ok ay. And did you have any part ic ular di ff ic ult y with [Ms. B ank er]? [CIN DY ]: No , no t really . . . .
  [ATTORNEY] : Okay. Are you al le ging that Mr. Ca de s ai d som ething

untr ue a bout you? [CINDY] : Not that Mr. Cade per sona ll y sa id anythi ng u ntru e. It was th e pro cess.

** ** [ AT TO RN EY ] : Ok a y. Ho w a bo ut wi th r e gar d t o Ms
. Som e r a l l [ s i c ]
. Do you know of anythi ng she sa id t hat was u ntrue about you? [CINDY] : I - - don’ t know of anything t

hat she sa id. [AT TO RN EY ]: Ho w ab ou t Ms. G rant? . . .7

[CINDY] : I don’ t know anyt hing - - [ATTORNEY] : Okay. [CIN DY ]: -- that sh e said. [AT TO RN EY ]: Ho w ab ou t Ms. L afayette? . . . [CINDY] : Like I sa id, I don’t know what the y -- I don’t know what anybody s ai d. [AT TO RN EY ]: Ok ay. . . . A ndthat w ou ld in clud e M s. G rant an d M s.

Ban ker[,] righ t? [CIN DY ]: Yes. The de fe ndant s argue d that Ci ndy’s st at em ent s ma de duri ng her de posi ti on es ta bli she d that the y had not

subj ec te d her

to hara ss me nt or

ma de f al se st at em ent s a

bout he r. ¶7. Als o duri ng Cindy’ s de posi ti on, a ft er bei ng ques ti on ed regard ing her prof es si onal
con du ct, C ind y admittedth at sh e h ad receivedtw o write-ups du ring h er emplo ymen t with BMH-GT. The f

ir st wri te -up w as a result of Ci ndy expos ing a part of her butt ock and invi ti ng a doc tor

at BMH-GT to “kiss [he r] butt .” The s ec ond wri te -up aros e f rom an al le gat ion t

hat Cin dy h ad br oken a

pat ie nt’ s m em

brane dur ing l abor . BMH- GT pla ce d Cindy on l eave whil e it

inve st igate d the se cond i nci dent . Fol lowi ng the inve st igati on, and af te r f indi ng no bas is for

the al le gat ion, BMH-GT r ei nst at ed Ci ndy’s em ploym ent and
c om pe ns a t e d h e r

f or the ti m e th a t

sh e wa s of

f
. Th e r e c or d d oe s no t

e s t a bl i s h that BM H- GT repo rted C ind y to the B oardbasedon the seco ndincid ent. ¶8. In her re spons e to the mot ions for summary judgm ent , Cindy ar gued that it was cl ear that B MH -GT andthe in div idu al defen dan ts hadacted w ith mal ic e an d w ith an inten t to har m he r by t er

mi nat ing he r e mpl oymen t b ased on her pe rf orm anc e of

a pr oce dure that8

several oth er BM H-G T n urses h ad p erformedwith ou t repriman d o r terminatio n. C ind y also argu ed th at BM H-G T an d th e ind ividual d efend ants h ad in tentio nally andmalicio usly
re port ed he r t o the Boar d in an ef fort t o have her

nurs ing l ic ens e revok ed. C indy i nsi st ed that th e defen dan ts’ action s were ex treme andou trageo us. ¶9. In s upport

of her argum ent s, Cindy s ubmi tt ed e xce rpt s f rom the tr ans cr ipt s of

the depos it ions of s eve ra l i ndivi dual s, inc ludi ng Dr
. Holz haue r; Dr. Gre gory Chi ldr ey, another medical d octo r emplo yedby BM H-G T; an d M ary L ov ing , Cin dy Harriso n, an d M arty Do l l a r , l abo r - a nd

- de l i ve ry nur s e s e mpl oy e d b y B MH
- GT
. ¶10. The f

oll owing c oll oquy took pl ac e be twe en D r. H olzhaue r and Cindy’ s att orne y duri ng Dr. Holz haue r’ s de posi ti on: [ATTORNEY] : In Fe bruary of 2010, what woul d have bee n r equi re d of [l abor -and-de li ver

y nurs es ] in a pos tpart

um he mor

rha ge si tuati on? [HOLZHAUER] : Stop t he bl ee ding. [AT TO RN EY ]: An d h ow wo uldthey do that? [HO LZ HA UE R]: Th e best w ay to stop bleed ing is bi-man ual.
**** [ATTORNEY] : All ri ght. And have you spe ci fically tra ine d nurs es at

Bapt is t t o per for

m t his proc edur e? [HOLZHAUER] : I have. [ATTORNEY] : Can you give us som e nam es of s ome nurs es that you’ ve

tr ai ned? [ HO LZ HA UE R] : Th e ol d c r e w. [AT TO RN EY ]: All rig ht.9

[HO LZ HA UE R]: Ok ay. T h e o n es that h ave b een th ere a lon g time all

kn ow ho w to do this. [ATTORNEY] : All ri ght. Such a s Ci ndy Petty? [HOLZHAUER] : Such a s Ci ndy Petty. ¶11. Duri ng his depos it ion, Dr. Chil dre y al so st at ed that he had tr ai ned Cindy to pe rf orm the proc edur e and that he had i ss ued a wri tt en or der , whi ch i nstruc te d nurs es to pe rf orm the proc edur e whe n nee ded. Acc ordi ng to Dr . Chi ldr ey, “[n]o furt her orde r, ei the r wr itte n or
ver bal , [ was ] nec es sa

ry f or a la bor and del ive ry nur se to pe rf orm [the] proc edur e on any of [his] pati en ts .” D r. Ch ildrey ind icated th at he b elievedthat C ind y h ad b een co mpeten t to per for m t he pr oce dure
. ¶ 12
. Duri ng her

d e po s i t i on , M a ry s t a t e d that s he h a d he a r d r

um or s a bo ut the inc ide nt le adi ng t o Ci ndy’s t er

mi nat ion. Mar

y a ls o s tate d that

s he had spoke n wi th othe r nurs es at BM H-G T, w ho ind icated th at they wo uldhav e perfo rme dt h e p roced ure o n th e po stoper at ive pat ie nt, just a s Ci ndy had. Duri ng her depos it ion, Har

ri son s tate d that s he ha d per for me d the proc edur e “[ a] c ouple of ti me s, ” and that s he wa s unawar e of any nur se othe r than Cindy who ha d been re pri manded, sus pende d, or te rm inate d bas ed on the nur se ’s per for mance of the pr oce dure . Marty ma de i dent ic al st at em ent s dur ing he r de posi ti on. ¶13. Cindy a ls o subm itte d exc er pts fr om t he transc ri pts of the de posi ti ons of othe r l abor

and -deliv ery n u rs es emp lo y edb y B M H -G T , i n w h ic h th o se n u rs es st at ed : (1) th ey p erson ally had pe rf orm ed the proce dure or kne w of s ome one who ha d per for me d the proc edur e; and (2) they wer e unaware of any nur se other

than Cindy who ha d be en te rminated for per for mi ng the proc edur e.10

¶14. By orde r f

il ed De ce mbe r 5, 2013, the ci rc uit c ourt f ound that summary j udgme nt was pro per as to Cin dy ’s claim of in tentio nal in fliction of emo tion al distress b ecause C ind y co uld
no t cite to an y actio n b y B MH -GT or th e ind ividual d efend an ts t h at co nstitu ted d eliberate andcon tinu ou s harassmen t, or th at cou ld b e con sideredextreme an d o utrag eou s con du ct. The ci rc uit

c ourt f ound that Ci ndy’s c la im

of ne gli gent

inf li ct ion of em oti onal dis tr es s wa s bar re d by se ct ion 71- 3-9. The ci rc uit c ourt a ls o f ound that Ci ndy c ould not pre vai l on he r tor ti ous- int er fe re nce cl ai m b e c a us e Ci nd y h a d p r ov i de d n o e vi de nc e t o s up po r t he r a l l egati on that th e repo rt made to the B oardhadcau se dh erto lose an y emp loy ment o pp ortu nities. Addit iona ll y, the c ir cui t c ourt found that

summary j udgme nt wa s pr oper as to Ci ndy’s def am at ion c la im

beca use Cindy had not provide d any evide nce of f al se st at em ent s m ade by BM H-G T o r th e in div idu al defen dan ts. Th e circuit co urt also fou ndthat an y statemen ts
ma de by BMH- GT wer e pr ote ct ed by a qual if ie d pri vil ege . ¶15. On appe al , Cindy ar gues that the ci rc uit court er re d by granti ng summary j udgme nt
as to he r c la im

of int ent iona l inf

li ct ion of em oti onal dis tr es s be ca use the re re ma in ge nuine is sue s of mate ri al fa ct , and a r ea sona ble jury could f

ind t hat the def endants ’ a ct ions wer e outr age ous, wil lf

ul, ma li ci ous, and i nte nti onal . Ci ndy further argue s that the ci rc uit

court
er re d by fi nding t

hat the negl ige nt- inf

li ct ion- of- em otio nal -di stre ss cl ai m wa s barr ed by
se ct ion 71-3- 9 beca

use the def

endants ’ ac ti ons wer e int ent iona l. Cindy fa il ed t o ra is e any
ar gume nts cha ll engi ng the ci rc uit court’ s gr ant

of s ummary ju dgment

as to he r c la im s of tor ti ous i nte rf

er enc e a nd def am at ion. ¶16
. In resp on se, BM H-G T andth e in div idu al d efend ants reiterate th e argu ments mad e in their mo tion s for su mmary ju dg ment, wh ile in sisting that su mmary ju dg ment w as pro per in11

thi s c as e. Addit iona ll y, th e d ef endants ins is t t

hat bec aus e Ci ndy fa il ed t o ra is e any
ar gume nts re gar ding t

he c ir cui t court’ s grant of summary judgm ent on her cl ai ms of t ort ious int er fe re nce and de famati on, Ci ndy has waive d those cla im s on appe al . Al te rnati vel y, the defen dan ts argu e that th e circuit co urt d id n ot err b y gran ting su mmary jud gmen t as to th ose claims. Th e d efend ants also argu e th at C ind y has p rov idedno evid ence to establish that th eir
ac ti ons have pr ec lude d any e mpl oyme nt opport unit ie s that

she may have had. DI SC US SI ON ¶17. We agree that Cindy has wai ved any as si gnme nts of er ror ar is ing fr om the circu it
court’ s gr ant

of s umm ar

y judgm ent

on her c la im s of

tortious int er fe re nce and de famati on. “Whe re an a ss ignm ent

of er ror i s not dis cus se d i n the bri ef s, i t is c onsi der ed a

bandone d and wai ved on a

ppea l. ” Clayv. Clay , 837 So. 2d 215, 220 (¶27) (Mis s. Ct. App. 2003) ( ci ti ng Su mra ll v. Sta te , 758 So. 2d 1091, 1094 ( ¶6) (Mi ss . Ct
. App. 2000))
. Ther ef ore , we af fi rm the cir cu it cou rt’s gran t of su mmary ju dg ment as to tho se claims, andwe o nly discu ss Cindy’ s a ss ignm ent s of

err or ar is ing f

rom the ci rc uit

court’ s gr ant

of s umm ar

y judgm ent

as to h er remainin g claims. ¶18. The s tandar d of r evi ew f or s umm ar

y judgm ent s i s we ll es ta

bli she d: [An a ppel late court] conduc ts de novo r evi ew of orde rs granti ng or de nying summary j udgme nt and looks at a ll the evi dent iary m atte rs bef ore it [. ]
. . . The evi denc e must

be vie wed i n the li ght m ost favora ble to t he party aga ins t whom the mot ion ha s be en m ade . If ther e is no genui ne is sue of m at er ia l f ac t and the movi ng party is e nti tl ed t o [a ] judgm ent as a m atte r of

law, s umm ar

y judgm ent shoul d be gr ant ed i n the movi ng party’ s f avor . The burde n of de mons tr at ing that no ge nuine is sue of mate ri al fa ct exi st s i s on the m oving party. I f ther e is doubt a s t o whether

or not a f ac t i ss ue e xis ts , i t s hould be res olve d in favor of the non- movi ng party. That is , i t i s be tt er

to e rr o n the side of denyi ng a mot ion f or s umm ar

y judgm ent

if a doubt exi st s a s t o whether

a ge nuine is sue of fact ex ists.12

Lee v. Golde n Tri angle Planni ng & Dev . Di st . I nc ., 79 7 So . 2d 84 5, 84 7-4 8 (¶¶5-6 ) (Miss. 2001) ( int er

nal ci tati ons om itte d). I. Inten tion al In

fliction of Emo tion al D istress ¶ 19
. As s t a t e d, Ci ndy i ns i s t s that the f a ct s of thi s c a s e c l e a r l y de m on s tr a t e that BM H- GT
ac te d with ma li ce when it te rm inate d her em ploym ent without a

le git im at e ba si s f

or doi ng
so. Although Cindy a dmi ts that s he wa s an at- wil l em ploye e with BMH-GT, she ins is ts that the la ck of

a l egi ti mate bas is for

her te rmi nat ion pr oves that BMH- GT’s ac ti ons we re int ent iona l, wil lf

ul, want on, and ma li ci ous. Cindy furthe r ins is ts that m al ic e can be i nfe rr ed fr om the fact th at

BMH-GT r eporte d her

to t he Board, the re by, a cc ordi ng to Ci ndy, int ent iona ll y pla ci ng her

nurs ing l ic ens e at s take. ¶20
. “A cla im for inten tion al inflictio n of emotio nal distress requ ires con du ct that is ‘so outr age ous i n chara ct er , and so e xtr em e i n degr ee , a s t o go beyond all po ssible bounds of dec enc y, and to be regarde d as atroc ious , and utt er ly int ole ra ble in a civi li ze d communi ty. ’” Jones v. Mullen , 100 So. 3d 490, 498-99 (¶ 40) (Mi ss . Ct. App. 2012) ( quoti ng Langston v. Bige low , 82 0 S o. 2 d 7 52 , 75 7 (¶1 1) (M iss. Ct. A pp . 20 02 )). “If there is o utrag eou s con du ct,
no inju ry is req uiredfor the recov ery of inflictio n of emotio nal d istress or men tal ang uish .” Wi l s on v . G e n. M

otor s A c c e pt an ce Corp. , 8 83 So. 2d 56, 65 (¶ 35) ( Mis s. 2004) ( ci tati on omi tt ed) . “ [T] he natur e of the ac t i ts el f, rathe r t

han the se ri ousne ss of the c onse quenc es , c an jus ti fy an award f

or c ompe nsator

y dam age s. ” Id. (c it at ion om itte d). ¶21. “Mi ss is si ppi i s an em ploym ent at -wi ll st at e. The ge ner al rul e of em ploym ent at [- ] will is th at a con tract for emp loy ment fo r an in defin ite p eriodmay b e termin ated at the w ill of e it her party, whether

the te rm inati on is for

any r ea son or

no re as on at

al l. ” Buchanan v

.13

Amer is tar

Casi no Vic ks burg I

nc ., 85 2 S o. 2 d 2 5, 2 6 (¶4 ) (Miss. 2 00 3) (citatio n o mitted). ¶22. In Lee , a ca se c it ed by the defend ants, th e app ellant, an at-will emp loy ee, was te rm inate d af

te r s he r ec ei ved

ne gat i ve f

e e db a c k o n h e r

pe rf orm anc e e val uat ions and a ft er she
re fus ed t o ac ce pt a

re sul tant de motion
. Lee , 797 So. 2d at 847 (¶ ¶3- 4). Foll owing he r te rm inati on, the a

ppel lant f il ed a gri evance com

pla int with her for me r e mpl oyer , and she hir ed an attor

ney to re pre se nt her

dur ing the gr ie vanc e proc ess. Id. at (¶ 4). Aft er

the gri eva nc e c omm i t t e e up he l d the t e rm i nat i on , the a pp e l l a nt s ue d the f

or m e r e mpl oye r, al le ging, in part , int ent iona l inf li ct ion of em oti onal dist

re ss base d on re ta li at ory di sc har ge. Id . The appe ll ant

argue d that

she was fi re d bec aus e s he i nit iate d the gri evance proc es s and becau se she h ired an attorn ey to represen t her. Id . at 851 (¶21). T he trial court gr ant ed summary jud g me n t in favo r of th e emplo yer, an d an app eal ensu ed. Id
. a t 84 7 ( ¶ 1)
. On app eal, as to th e emotio nal-d istress claim, ou r sup reme cou rt fou nd : A claim fo r inten tion al inflictio n o f emotio nal distress will n ot o rdin arily lie for me re em

ployment d is pute s. Rec ognit ion of a c aus e of

ac ti on for int ent iona l i nfl ic ti on of e mot ional dist re ss in a workpl ac e e nvir onme nt ha s usua ll y bee n li mi te d to c as es invol ving a patte rn of

del ibe rate , r epe at ed har as sm ent

over a period o f time. It

is the nat ure of the a ct

it se lf [—] not t he seriou sness o f its con sequ ences[— ]that giv es impetu s to leg al redress. Id. at 851-52 ( ¶24) (i nte rna l c it at ions and quot at ion m ar ks om itte d). ¶23. Our s upre me court a ls o uphel d the tr ia l cour t’ s grant of s umm ar

y judgm ent , f

indi ng that th e app ellant co uldno t prev ail on the emo tion al-distress claim b ecause sh e was an atwill emplo yee andb ecause she cou ld no t estab lish that her termin ation was retaliato ry. Id
. at (¶¶21 -25 ). In o ther w ord s, Lee holds that an at- wil l em

ploye e who i s t er

mi nat ed by he r
em ploye r c annot

sus ta in any ac ti on aga ins t the e mpl oyer for re ta li at ory di sc har ge no m atte r14

the em oti onal dis tr es s t

hat she may have suf

fe re d as a r es ult

of t he di sc har ge. ¶24
. As in dicated , becau se Cin dy was an at -wi ll em ploy ee, BM H-G T w as free to termin ate her at any t im e. Ther ef

ore , ba se d on Lee , we fi nd that ther e is no me ri t to Ci ndy’s ar gume nt that B MH -GT can b e heldliable to her fo r the emotio nal d istress that sh e suffered as a result of B MH -GT ’s termin ation of h er. Ho wev er, as discu ssed in the remain ing po rtion of th is opin ion, BMH-GT’ s a ct ion i n re port ing Ci ndy to t he Board t ake s this ca se outs ide of the par am et er s of Lee , ther eby m aki ng Lee dis ti nguis habl e. ¶25. Fir st , BMH- GT’s ac ti on in r eporti ng Cindy t o the Boar d fol lowe d it s t er mi nat ion of her . Thus, the em

ploye e- em

ploye r r el at ions hip ha d ende d. Se cond, BMH-GT ha s pr es ent ed no evi denc e that it

had an affi rm at ive duty to re port Cindy to the Board. Thir d, ther e i s no evi denc e that

making s uch a

re port was a rout ine part

of BMH- GT’s em

ploym ent pra ct ic es up on terminatin g an emplo yee fo r cause. M oreo ver, th e recordreveals th at o ther n urses, aga ins t whom BMH-GT took no dis ci pli nar y ac ti on, ha d per for

me d the ver

y proc edur e that
was the basi s of the report ma de aga ins t Cindy to the Board. Further , the re cor d es ta bli she s that Dr . Hol zha

uer , the pati ent ’s tr eati ng physi ci an, had trai ned Ci ndy to pe rf orm the proc edur e and had expe ct ed her t o per for m t he pr oce dure on his pat ie nts . Addi ti onal ly, as st at ed, the Boar d did not

fi nd that Ci ndy’s ac ti on in performi ng the proc edur e f el l out si de of he r s cope of pract ic e. And as st at ed, no dis ci pli nar y ac ti on was war

rante d. The re for e, Cindy ha s at l ea st

cre at ed a genui ne is sue of fac t as to whethe r BMH- GT’s unpre ce dent ed, nonobligator

y ac t of re port ing he r t o the Boar d, a ft er the em ploym ent re lati onshi p was te rm inate d and wi thout

a c le ar bas is for

doing s o, c on sti tut ed i nte nti onal inf li ct ion of
em oti onal dis tr es s. Ther ef ore , we fi nd that t

he c ir cui t c ourt

er re d by granti ng summary15

jud gmen t on this claim. II. Neg ligen t Inflictio n o f Em otio na l Distress ¶26
. Sectio n 7 1-3 -9 p rov ides: Th e liability of an emplo yer to pay comp ensatio n s h al l b e ex clusiv e andin place o f all other

li abi li ty of

suc h em ploye r t o the em

ploye e, his le gal re pre se ntati ve, husband or wif e, pare nts , depe ndent s, next- of- kin, and anyone othe rwi se enti tl ed to re cove r dam age s at comm on law or other

wis e f rom suc h emplo yer o n acco un t of su ch in jury o r d eath, excep t that if an emplo yer fails to s e c ur e paym e nt

of c om pe ns a t i ona s r e qu i r e d b y thi s c ha pt e r , a n i nj ure d em ploye e, or his lega l re pre se ntati ve in ca se death r es ult s f rom the inj ury, may el ec t to cl ai m com

pens at ion under

this c hapt er , or t o ma int ai n an a ct ion at l aw for dam age s on acc ount of suc h injur y or de ath. I n suc h ac ti on the def endant may not pl ea d as a

de fe nse that

the inj ury wa s c aus ed by the ne gli genc e of a fe ll ow se rvant, nor that

the em ploye e a ss ume d the ri sk of his e mpl oyme nt, nor that t he i njur y was due t o the contri butor y negl ige nce of the e mpl oyee . ¶27. In Bowden v . Young , 120 So. 3d 971, 975 (¶ 10) (Mi ss . 2013), af te r the em ploym ent
re lati on ship ende d, f

orm er em ploye es fi le d a c ompl ai nt a gai nst the ir for me r e mpl oyer , as se rt ing c la im s of

batt er y, int ent iona l inf

li ct ion of em oti onal dis tr es s, ai ding and abe tt ing the ma int enance of a

publi c and pr ivate nui sance , and cons pir ac y. The em ploye r m oved f

or a dismissal, arg uin g th at the emp loy ees’ claims were b arred by th e A ct. Id . The tr ia l c ourt den ied the motio ns, andthe emp loy er app ealed. Id . U po n rev iew, th e Mississip pi S up reme Co urt fo un d th at, “[e]ssentially, if th e facts alleged or p rov en p oi n t to n eglig ence, g ross neg ligen ce, or reck lessness, des pite an al le

gati on of ac tual

intent , [an ap pellate co urt] will fi nd that wor

ker s’ com pens at ion i s the s ole avenu e for rel ie f f or the a ggri eve d party. ” Id
. at 977 (¶ 15) ( em

phas is a dded) . Our

supr em e c ourt

furthe r f ound that “ abs ent

the em ploye r’ s delib erate in tent a nd

design to in

jure the em

ploye e, the law in Mi ss is si ppi .
. . does not a ll ow an i njur ed e mpl oyee to e sc ape the exclusiv e-rem edy pr ovis ions of the Ac t. ” Id . at ( ¶18)16

(emph asis add ed). B ecause Cin dy was an at-will emp loy ee claiming that B MH -GT is liable to he r f or negl ige nt inf

li ct ion of e mot iona l di stre ss ar is ing f rom BMH-GT’ s t er

mi nat ion of her, Lee and Bowden make i t c le ar that s he c annot

main tai n an a ct ion a gai nst her for me r
em ploye r f or ne gli gent

inf liction of e mot iona l di stre ss . Thi s i ss ue i s, the re for e, without merit. ¶28
. Acco rdin gly , we affirm in part an d rev erse andremandin p art. ¶29. TH E J UD GM EN T O F T HE LO WN DE S C OU NT Y C IRC UIT CO UR T IS AFFIRMED I N P AR T A ND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL A RE AS SE SS ED ONE-HALF TO THE APPELLANT AND ONEHALF TO THE APPELLEES. LE E, C. J. , GR IFFI S, P . J. , BA RN ES , I SH EE , RO BE RT S, CA RL TO N, MA XW EL L A ND FA I R, JJ . , CO NC UR . JA MES, J. , CO NC UR S I N P AR T WI TH OU T S EP AR

AT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON .