Opinion ID: 718327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The State Law Emotional Distress Claim.

Text: 40 Walleri also alleged a state law claim for emotional distress allegedly resulting from the manner in which her supervisors at FHLBS treated her. The court dismissed this claim on the ground that it was preempted by § 1432(a) as well. E.R. at 126-27. We do not think that the statutory power to dismiss at pleasure necessarily preempts claims based on an employer's wrongful act directed at the employee outside of the employment relationship. Here, however, the conduct complained of relates solely to the employment relationship. The fifth claim of Walleri's fourth amended complaint alleges that the conduct of defendants as described in paragraphs 14 and 19, was intended to and did cause severe emotional distress to plaintiff E.R. at 10-11, 90. Paragraph 14 alleges that defendants, in order to 'quiet Walleri,' repeatedly discouraged and interfered with the performance of ... [Walleri's] contractual duties through their threats to her that she would be removed as examiner-in-charge and be given an unacceptable performance rating and terminated if she did not delete certain significant exam findings.... E.R. at 79-80. And paragraph 19 avers that as a result of ... [Walleri's] refusal to agree to the deletion of facts and findings from her report of examination ... and of her whistleblowing ... [she] was subjected to the following course of retaliatory treatment: confrontational meetings with her supervisors, removal as examiner in charge, an unacceptable performance rating, denial of part-time work, termination from employment, and a cover-up of the results of her investigation. E.R. at 81-82. 41 Attaching the label of intentional infliction of emotional distress to these allegations does not alter the fact that they are all addressed to defendants' management of the employment relationship with Walleri. When § 1432(a) vested power in the Federal Home Loan Banks to select, employ, and fix the compensation of ... [their] employees ... to define their duties ... and to dismiss [them] at pleasure ... it left no room for oversight under state law over the manner in which that power is exercised. This claim was properly dismissed. 42