Opinion ID: 662719
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Emotional Distress Claims

Text: 15 Mitchell alleges that he is entitled to damages for Lydall's intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Mitchell says he suffered emotional distress because of Lydall's failure to reasonably accommodate his disability and because of his discharge. 16 To state a claim under North Carolina law for an intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must demonstrate, inter alia, that the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct. Hall v. Post, 372 S.E.2d 711, 716 (N.C.1988); see Briggs v. Rosenthal, 327 S.E.2d 308, 311 (N.C. Ct.App.1985) (holding that the conduct must be  'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community'  (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS Sec. 46, cmt. d (1965)), cert. denied, 332 S.E.2d 479 (N.C.1985). Whether a complaint sufficiently alleges outrageous conduct initially is a question of law. Best v. Duke Univ., 436 S.E.2d 395, 400 (N.C. Ct.App.1993). 17 The district court compared Lydall's alleged conduct, as set forth in Mitchell's complaint, with the conduct alleged in several North Carolina intentional infliction cases. The district court concluded that Lydall's alleged conduct did not rise to the level of intolerable behavior required for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress under North Carolina law. We agree, and affirm the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of this claim. 18 The district court likewise dismissed Mitchell's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim after holding that this tort requires a showing of outrageous conduct. We decline to review that holding because we believe the negligent infliction claim should have been dismissed for a more basic reason: Mitchell's complaint does not allege any negligent acts by Lydall. See Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 395 S.E.2d 85, 97 (N.C.1990) (to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant negligently engaged in conduct, ...). Mitchell's complaint contains merely a single, conclusory allegation that Lydall was negligent; the material factual allegations charge nothing but intentional acts by Lydall in failing to accommodate Mitchell's MS condition and in discharging him. Taking these material factual allegations as true and construing them in the light most favorable to Mitchell, see Finlator v. Powers, 902 F.2d 1158, 1160 (4th Cir.1990), we must conclude that they do not state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.