Opinion ID: 1198955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: iied

Text: I accept, arguendo, the court's characterization of Beard I and I assume as well that the court is correct in requiring Beard to exhaust his contractual remedies as to individual defendants. The court nevertheless errs, as a matter of fact, in holding that Beard should not be excused from exhausting his contractual remedies as to his claim for IIED. It may be arguable that Beard failed to exhaust his contractual remedies as to the constructive discharge claim. [1] Beard's resignation was the last essential element of that claim. Beard did not specifically request that Senkow grieve a claim for constructive discharge after Beard resigned  after the cause of action arose. However, Beard's resignation was not an essential element of his claim for IIED. A claim for IIED requires only (1) that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, (2) that the conduct was intentional or reckless, (3) that this conduct caused the plaintiff emotional distress, and (4) that the distress was severe. Cameron v. Beard, 864 P.2d 538, 548 (Alaska 1993). Beard did request that Senkow grieve the pattern of harassment against him. It is this pattern of harassment which supports both the IIED claim and the constructive discharge claim. Although it is arguable that the constructive discharge claim did not arise until after Beard resigned, no such argument can be made as to the IIED claim. Senkow explicitly refused to recognize the pattern of harassment alleged by Beard, which supports his claim for IIED. Under even the court's stringent interpretation of Casey v. City of Fairbanks, 670 P.2d 1133 (Alaska 1983), Beard has complied with the requirements for excusing his failure to exhaust his contractual remedies as to his IIED claim. [2] The court fails to adequately explain why it requires Beard to have asked the union to grieve conduct that occurred after mid-May 1986. Op. at 9. The pattern of harassment alleged by Beard prior to that time is sufficient to support his claim for IIED. Senkow's explicit refusal to grieve this pattern of harassment is sufficient to satisfy the court's interpretation of Casey. The court's assertion that Beard did not timely ask the union to pursue the work conditions that were central to his IIED claims, Op. at 9, is inaccurate. The judgments against McMullen and Venusti should be affirmed.