Opinion ID: 606331
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim Against Kimel

Text: 19 Jackson has also asserted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Kimel individually. In order to support her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under North Carolina law, Jackson must show that Kimel engaged in (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) which was intended to cause and did cause (3) severe emotional distress. Hogan, 340 S.E.2d at 119. Jackson must also demonstrate that the alleged extreme and outrageous conduct occurred within the three-year statute of limitations for intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 276 S.E.2d 325, 330 (1981). 20 Kimel argues that under a recent North Carolina case, Waddle v. Sparks, 331 N.C. 73, 414 S.E.2d 22, 28-29 (1992), we should look only at the acts alleged during the three-year statute of limitations period in determining whether Jackson has stated a claim. The only act alleged within the three-year period prior to the filing of Jackson's complaint is the invitation to go to Grandfather Mountain. Kimel contends that the invitation, alone, is not sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jackson responds that Kimel engaged in an ongoing pattern of harassment, similar to a continuing violation under Title VII, 3 and therefore we should not limit our review to acts within the three year period. 21 In Waddle, summary judgment was granted on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the plaintiff, Simpson, failed to demonstrate that any of the conduct of the defendant, Sparks, occurred within the limitations period. 414 S.E.2d at 29. Simpson stated that all of the questionable conduct occurred during her employment, but she could not remember the day, month, or year when any of the conduct occurred. Id. In affirming the grant of summary judgment to defendant Sparks, the North Carolina Supreme Court stated: 22 If plaintiff Simpson could have testified that any of the specific incidents with Sparks occurred [within the three year statute of limitations period], her evidentiary forecast of Sparks' conduct would have been sufficient to survive a summary judgment motion based on the statute of limitations. Simpson, however, was not able to state a date--even within a year--when any one of the various specific incidents she alleges against Sparks occurred. 23 Under Waddle, Jackson's allegation that Kimel invited her to go to Grandfather Mountain satisfies the requirement of some specific act alleged to have occurred within the three-year statute of limitations. According to Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 276 S.E.2d 325, 336 n. 11 (1981), we can look to acts prior to the three-year period for the context of this invitation, even if those acts are not compensable. 276 S.E.2d at 336 n. 11. Therefore, we hold that the invitation to Grandfather Mountain, when placed in the context of the prior alleged acts, is enough for Jackson's claim to survive summary judgment as to the statute of limitations defense. 24 Kimel also argues that because he could not have carried out the threats that Jackson alleges he made (to terminate her employment or to withhold assistance with attendance related problems), her allegations are insufficient to establish either that his conduct was extreme and outrageous or that he intended to inflict emotional distress. Kimel argues that under the collective bargaining agreement, attendance policies, and grievance procedures, he could not possibly have taken any baseless adverse employment action against Jackson. Kimel also asserts that, given Jackson's involvement with the union, the fact that she had previously filed a grievance for harassment against another supervisor, and her admitted knowledge of the attendance policies, the alleged threats could not have been reasonably perceived to have any coercive force. According to Kimel, these facts make it impossible for Jackson to support her claim either that his conduct was extreme and outrageous or that he intended to inflict emotional distress. 25 Nevertheless, Kimel asserts no legal authority for his theory that the efficacy of his threats is central to determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Kimel is correct that courts should not determine in a vacuum the extremity or outrageousness of his conduct or his intention to inflict emotional distress. See McCormick v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 934 F.2d 531, 535 (4th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 912, 116 L.Ed.2d 813 (1992). In our view, however, taking the evidence in a light most favorable to Jackson, as we must, the conduct which she has alleged may reasonably be found to be sufficiently outrageous as to permit recovery. Hogan, 340 S.E.2d at 121. Jackson's perceptions, their reasonableness, and whether an adequate basis existed to support Jackson's belief that Kimel could carry out the coercive actions he threatened are not questions for resolution at summary judgment. These issues are for the jury to consider in determining whether the conduct complained of is sufficiently extreme and outrageous and was intended to cause emotional distress so that liability should result. Id. Jackson has stated a claim against Kimel for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
26 Next, we must address whether Jackson's claim against Kimel was properly removed to federal court and foreclosed by summary judgment on the ground that it was preempted by § 301. If Jackson's claim against Kimel is preempted by § 301, then summary judgment would be appropriate both because Jackson failed to exhaust her grievance procedures and because Kimel would not be a proper party to a § 301 action. 4 27 Section 301 authorizes federal courts to hear suits for violations of contracts between an employer and a labor organization or between labor organizations. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Section 301 not only gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear employment cases covered by collective bargaining agreements, but also directs them to fashion a body of federal common law to resolve such disputes, Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 209, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 1910, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985), and preempts any state law claims which require the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement. Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 413, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 1885, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988). Our recent en banc decision in McCormick set out the standards applicable in this Circuit for determining whether a state law claim is preempted by § 301. 28 In McCormick an employee alleged various state law claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on the employer's disposal of the contents of his work locker upon his discharge. 934 F.2d at 533. We affirmed the ruling that the state law claims were preempted by § 301 because resolution of the claims required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement to determine if the employer was authorized to act as it did. Id. Specifically, we held that [s]tate tort claims are preempted where reference to a collective bargaining agreement is necessary to determine whether a 'duty of care' exists or to define 'the nature and scope of that duty.'  Id. (quoting International Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851, 862, 107 S.Ct. 2161, 2168, 95 L.Ed.2d 791 (1987)). McCormick also expanded the definition of the collective bargaining agreement to a generalized code, id., and an industrial common law, id. (quoting United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 581-82, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1352-53, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960)), which would include practices and procedures relating to the employment relationship. 29 Despite the considerable breadth of our opinion in McCormick, it does not require preemption of every conceivable claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress which arises from conduct in the work place. In McCormick, the key question for determining whether the employer's conduct was wrongful under state tort law was whether the collective bargaining agreement explicitly or implicitly authorized the allegedly wrongful conduct. Id. at 537. Basically, the employer's conduct could not be authorized and legal under the collective bargaining agreement and simultaneously be considered 'outrageous and intolerable' under Virginia law. Id. Applying this standard, the claim in McCormick was preempted because the determination of whether the acts were wrongful, extreme, and outrageous had to be conducted with reference to the employer's rights and duties under the collective bargaining agreement. 30 Reference to the collective bargaining agreement is not necessary to determine whether Kimel's conduct was extreme and outrageous. His conduct, if it occurred as alleged, is wrongful regardless of whether it was authorized by the collective bargaining agreement. The coerced-sex-in-exchange-for-job-benefits Jackson alleged is wrongful under federal law, Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2, against the public policy of the state of North Carolina, N.C.Gen.Stat. § 143-422.2 (Michie 1983), and arguably a violation of the criminal laws of the state, see Harrison v. Edison Bros. Apparel Stores, Inc., 924 F.2d 530, 534 (4th Cir.1991) (pointing out that North Carolina prohibits prostitution, includ[ing] the offering or receiving of the body for sexual intercourse for hire, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-203, and that the exchange of sexual intercourse for the valuable economic benefit of a job fits within North Carolina's criminal prohibition). Nothing in the collective bargaining agreement could authorize Kimel to coerce sexual favors in exchange for employment benefits. Indeed, if the collective bargaining agreement did authorize such actions, it would not be enforceable as against public policy. See Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 211-12, 105 S.Ct. at 1911-12. 31 Kimel argues that the claim is preempted because a court would have to refer to the collective bargaining agreement and other employment policies and procedures to determine whether Kimel could carry out the threats he allegedly made. As Kimel argued previously, he contends that the efficacy of his threats is significant in determining whether his actions were extreme and outrageous, whether he intended to inflict emotional distress, and whether Jackson was justified in perceiving the threats as legitimate. While this may be the case, under our analysis in McCormick, we do not believe this kind of reference to the collective bargaining agreement is sufficient to preempt the claim under § 301. 32 Stated in the words of McCormick, the question we must ask to determine whether Jackson's claim against Kimel is preempted is whether reference to the collective bargaining agreement is necessary to determine whether [Kimel had] a 'duty of care' ... or to define 'the nature and scope of that duty.'  934 F.2d at 536. If Kimel engaged in the actions which Jackson has alleged, his actions would be wrongful not because of a duty of care created or defined by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, but because of the principles of state tort law. To hold otherwise would mean every tort relating to the work place would be preempted--a result McCormick neither supports nor requires. 33 Other Circuits have reached the same conclusion with regard to similar claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress. In Keehr v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 825 F.2d 133, 134-35 (7th Cir.1987), an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement brought a claim which included a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a remark made to him by his supervisor during an altercation. The Seventh Circuit held that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was not preempted under § 301 because the tort claim did not purport to give meaning to the terms of the labor contract and in no way depended on interpretation of the labor contract for resolution of the claim. Id. at 137. The Seventh Circuit distinguished Keehr from other circuit opinions which held that intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were preempted, because under the facts of Keehr the employee's claim revolved around conduct by his employer that is not even arguably sanctioned by the labor contract. Id. at 138 n. 6. 34 The Seventh Circuit clarified in its subsequent decision, Douglas v. American Information Technologies Corp., 877 F.2d 565 (7th Cir.1989), that some intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are preempted under § 301 and some are not. The plaintiff's claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Douglas were premised on, among other things, her employer's denial of excused work days, denial of handicapped parking, forcing her to file discrimination charges in order to carry over excused days into the next calendar year, and giving her an unjustified final warning. Id. at 567. The Douglas court observed that the determination of whether conduct is extreme and outrageous may be evident without reference to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, but found that resolution of the claims in Douglas would indeed require a court to interpret the collective bargaining agreement to determine if the allegedly wrongful conduct was authorized under the agreement. Id. at 571, 572. 35 Similarly, in Hanks v. General Motors Corp., 906 F.2d 341 (8th Cir.1990), the Eighth Circuit determined that § 301 did not preempt an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The employer in Hanks assigned an employee to a supervisor who had been arrested for sexually molesting the employee's daughter. Id. at 342. The employer argued that the emotional distress claim was preempted because the employer's primary defense was that the collective bargaining agreement authorized its actions. Id. at 343. The Eighth Circuit disagreed, holding that § 301 did not preempt the claims because the plaintiff had not alleged a violation of any duty explicitly or implicitly arising from the collective bargaining agreement, the claims were not inextricably intertwined with the agreement, the claims could and must be resolved independent of the collective bargaining agreement, and, finally, because the claims involved duties owed by the employer to every member of society, not just to employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 344; see United Steelworkers of Am. v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362, 371, 110 S.Ct. 1904, 1910, 109 L.Ed.2d 362 (1990); see also Miller v. AT & T Network Systems, 850 F.2d 543, 550 n. 5 (9th Cir.1988) (specifically stating that not all claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress are preempted); Galvez v. Kuhn, 933 F.2d 773, 780 (9th Cir.1991) (finding an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim not preempted where compliance with the collective bargaining agreement could not temper the potential outrageousness of the conduct); Johnson v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 713 F.Supp. 885, 888 (M.D.N.C.1989) (intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against co-worker based on an allegation of sexual harassment was not preempted because the conduct could not even arguably be sanctioned by the collective bargaining agreement). 36 In this case, interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is not necessary to determine whether Kimel owed a duty to refrain from the alleged conduct; the collective bargaining agreement could not authorize his alleged behavior. Therefore, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of Kimel and remand for the district court to consider whether it will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to address the claim against Kimel or remand the claim to state court. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(c)(3) (West Supp.1992)