Opinion ID: 727597
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merits of the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

Text: 39 Alternatively, we affirm on the merits the district court's grant of Southfield's motion for summary judgment on Howard's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. To withstand a motion for summary judgment on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Michigan law, a plaintiff must produce evidence of (1)  'extreme and outrageous' conduct, (2) defendants' injurious intent or reckless disregard for the consequences of their acts, (3) causation, and (4) the actual experiencing of severe distress. Holmes v. Allstate Ins. Co., 326 N.W.2d 616, 619 (Mich.Ct.App.1982); see Roberts v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 374 N.W.2d 905, 908 (Mich.1985) (citing same four elements); Ledsinger v. Burmeister, 318 N.W.2d 558, 561 (Mich.Ct.App.1982). The Michigan Supreme Court has recognized the definition of this tort set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts: 40 Liability has been found only where the conduct has been 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. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, Outrageous! 41 Roberts, 374 N.W.2d at 908-09 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 46, comment d, at 72-73). Since Howard failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination, his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress must also fail because the lawful removal of one's name from an eligibility list cannot constitute outrageous conduct.