*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-20102

Summary Calendar

__________________

KAREEN EICHMANN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, ET AL.,

Defendants,

THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-4029)

______________________________________________

August 7, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kareen Eichmann appeals from an adverse summary judgment

granted in favor of appellee The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company. We

affirm.
1 Eichmann alleges that in December 1991, the general manager of

the hotel requested the she procure prostitutes for a hotel guest.

Eichmann did not report this request to anyone at the hotel in

accordance with hotel procedures. As did the district court, we

will accept this allegation as true for purposes of our analysis.

2 Specifically, Eichmann, who was in charge of the concierge

2

Eichmann, an at-will employee, sued The Ritz-Carlton alleging

wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional

distress. Eichmann based her claims on the assertion that she was

fired from her job as concierge supervisor for refusing to procure

prostitutes for a hotel visitor.1 Initially, Eichmann alleges a

Sabine Pilot claim for wrongful termination for refusal to perform

an illegal act. See Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d

733, 735 (Tex. 1985). However, to establish such a claim Eichmann

must prove that her discharge was for no other reason than her

refusal to perform the illegal act. Id. Where an employer

discharges an employee for both refusing to perform an illegal act

and for a legitimate reason, there is no exception to the general

rule that employment is terminable at any time, with or without

cause. Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 633

(Tex. 1995). "An employer who discharges an employee both for

refusing to perform an illegal act and for a legitimate reason or

reasons cannot be liable for wrongful discharge." Id. (emphasis in

original). The summary judgment evidence in this case reflects

that Eichmann was terminated for violation of a house rule by

allowing confidential guest information to be knowingly passed from

employee to employee.2 Eichmann herself testified that she
desk, allowed the daytimer of a rock singer to be reviewed and

photocopied by other hotel employees. Ultimately, the daytimer was

stolen from a bell closet where Eichmann had secured it.

3

reported to the Texas Employment Commission that the reason for her

termination was for breaching guest confidentiality. By her own

testimony, Eichmann cannot prove that she was terminated for the

sole reason that she refused to perform an illegal act.

Consequently, Eichmann's wrongful discharge claim fails as a matter

of law.

Similarly, the intentional infliction of emotional distress

claim fails as a matter of law. Under Texas law, a claim for

intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof that:

(1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the

conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the defendant's actions

caused the plaintiff emotional distress; and (4) the resulting

emotional distress was severe. Randall's Food Markets, Inc. v.

Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. 1995). Such a claim will not

lie for mere employment disputes. Johnson v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 965 F.2d 31, 33 (5th Cir. 1992). Although

an employer's conduct may rise to the level of illegality, only in

the most unusual cases will such conduct constitute "extreme and

outrageous" conduct. Prunty v. Arkansas Freightways, Inc., 16 F.3d

649, 654 (5th Cir. 1994). Eichmann's own testimony reflects that

she often received similar improper requests from guests. In

response, she was not "outraged" but gave her standard reply that

the request was beyond the realm of accommodation. Having
4

carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the employer's

alleged conduct does not reach the level necessary to support an

intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.