 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Regents of University of California v. Superior Court of Alameda County1/30/2002
Constitution of California, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendants." Petitioners contend this alleged conduct is not extreme and outrageous as a matter of law.
"`"Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community."'" (Potter, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1001.) "`Generally, conduct will be found to be actionable where 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!" [Citations.]'" (Helgeson v. American International Group, Inc. (S.D.Cal. 1999) 44 F.Supp.2d 1091, 1095; KOVR-TV, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1028.) " iability `"does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities," but only to conduct so extreme and outrageous "as to go beyond all possible bonds of decency . . . ."' [Citation.]" (Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 531, 537.)
In this case, the only conduct Rui has alleged is that petitioners denied his application for admission to Boalt. Such conduct cannot reasonably be said to cause feelings of outrage. Indeed, this challenged conduct is a common action that a university administrator is required to perform.
Petitioners persuasively analogize the conduct alleged in this case to a routine personnel decision made by an employer. In the employment context, such routine decisions as hiring and firing do not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct as a matter of law. (Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55 (Janken); see also King v. AC&R;Advertising (9th Cir. 1995) 65 F.3d 764; Schneider v. TRW, Inc. (9th Cir. 1991) 938 F.2d 986, 992 ; Trerice v. Blue Cross of California (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 878, 883-884; Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., supra, 88 Cal.App.3d at pp. 536-537.)
In Janken, employees of a large aircraft company sued their supervisors for age discrimination and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs alleged these supervisors made personnel management decisions pursuant to the company's policy of discriminating against employees over the age of 40 by terminating them or forcing them to resign without good cause. The Janken court affirmed trial court rulings sustaining demurrers to both causes of action. With respect to the emotional distress claim, the Janken court found that plaintiffs failed to plead facts to satisfy the outrageous conduct requirement. The court reasoned: "Managing personnel is not outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of human decency, but rather conduct essential to the welfare and prosperity of society. A simple pleading of personnel management activity is insufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged. If personnel management decisions are improperly motivated, the remedy is a suit against the employer for discrimination." (Janken, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 64.)
We agree with petitioners that "the act of denying admission to an applicant is the functional equivalent of `commonly necessary personnel management actions such as hiring and firing' found by the Janken court not to be outrageous as a matter of law." (Quoting Janken, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 80.) Furthermore, Janken illustrates a more fundamental rule: The conduct itself, not the alleged motive for that conduct, must be outrageous in order to satisfy the first element of the emotional distress tort. (Jankin, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 80; Helgeson v. American International Group, Inc., supra, 44 F.Supp.2d at p. 1095 [even if employe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|