 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Phinazee v. Interstate Nationalease Inc.3/16/1999
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
AN-120
Stanley Phinazee appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to his former employer, Interstate Nationalease, Inc. (Interstate) and Jim Stokely, his former employer and immediate supervisor respectively, on his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention.
Phinazee originally filed suit in federal district court in 1995, alleging these same state grounds as well as racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The state law claims were then dismissed and refiled in state court in April 1996. On March 27, 1997, the district court granted Interstate and Stokley's Motion for Summary Judgment on the federal claims, finding that Phinazee had failed to make out prima facie claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge.
"To succeed on [the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, Phinazee] must establish all four of the following elements: '(1) The conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) The conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; (4) The emotional distress must be severe.' (Punctuation omitted.) Hendrix v. Phillips, 207 Ga. App. 394, 395 (1) (428 SE2d 91) (1993). 'Whether a claim rises to the requisite level of outrageousness and egregiousness to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law.' (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Taylor v. Gelfand, 233 Ga. App. 835, 837 (3) (505 SE2d 222) (1998). Moreover, ' t has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by malice, or a degree of aggravation that would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. 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.' (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bowers v. Estep, 204 Ga. App. 615, 618 (2) (420 SE2d 336) (1992)." Odem v. Pace Academy, 235 Ga. App. 648, 654-655 (2) ( SE2d ) (1998).
This court conducts a de novo of the evidence in reviewing the grant or denial of a summary judgment, Goring v. Martinez, 224 Ga. App. 137, 138 (2) (479 SE2d 432) (1996). The trial court's order below did not specify the basis upon which summary judgment was granted, but " grant or denial of summary judgment must be affirmed if it is right for any reason. Gibbs v. Dodson, 229 Ga. App. 64, 69 (2) (492 SE2d 923) (1997); Malaga Mgmt. Co. v. John Deere Co., 208 Ga. App. 764, 767 (5) (431 SE2d 746) (1993)." Jimerson v. Republic Land and Inv. Co., Inc., 234 Ga. App. 417, 420 (3) ( SE2D ) (1998).
The bulk of the record in the court below and here consisted of pleadings, depositions, and exhibits from the federal district court action. A complete and detailed recitation of the facts is set out in the district court's order and will not be repeated here.
The issue is whether the same facts which were found insufficient to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination and constructive discharge under federal law are sufficient to prevent summary judgment to defendants on Phinazee's infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention state claims.
In this regard, OCGA § 9-12-40 states that " judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the s
Page 1 2 Georgia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|