871 F.2d 22 (4th Cir. 1989), 88-3976, English v. General Elec. Co.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Citation871 F.2d 22
Date03 April 1989
PartiesVera M. ENGLISH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Government Accountability Project, Amicus Curiae. Vera M. ENGLISH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Government Accountability Project, Amicus Curiae.
Docket Number88-3982.,88-3976

Page 22

871 F.2d 22 (4th Cir. 1989)

Vera M. ENGLISH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,

Government Accountability Project, Amicus Curiae.

Vera M. ENGLISH, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant,

Government Accountability Project, Amicus Curiae.

Nos. 88-3976, 88-3982.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

April 3, 1989

Argued Dec. 5, 1988.

M. Travis Payne (Edelstein and Payne, Raleigh, N.C., Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellant/cross-appellee.

Peter G. Nash (Dixie L. Atwater, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart, Washington, D.C., William W. Sturges, Weinstein & Sturges, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for appellee/cross-appellant.

(Stephen M. Kohn, Michael D. Kohn, Government Accountability Project, on brief), for amicus curiae.

Before RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this diversity action, Vera M. English appeals the district court's order dismissing her complaint on the ground that her state tort claim was preempted by federal law. The defendant, General Electric Company ("G.E."), cross-appeals from the district court denial of its motion to dismiss English's claim on the alternative ground that such claim failed to state a cause of action under North Carolina law. Finding no error, we affirm.

English was employed by G.E. as a laboratory technician at a nuclear fuel production facility in North Carolina. In February, 1984, she complained to both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") and her supervisors at the G.E. facility regarding what she believed to be serious violations of NRC safety standards. When no corrective action was taken, she deliberately failed to clean up radiation contamination

Page 23

at her work station in an effort to prove to her supervisor that such contamination was not being detected by the facility's safety inspectors. Although her efforts led to corrective action, she was disciplined by the company for her failure to clean up contamination of which she was aware. It is the measures allegedly taken by G.E. to discipline her that formed the basis for her tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. 1

The district court held that English had, under North Carolina law, stated a good cause of action for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the court further determined that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • 881 F.2d 1144 (1st Cir. 1989), 89-1019, Norris v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 3, 1989
    ...Some have found preemption: English v. General Electric Co., 683 F.Supp. 1006 (E.D.N.C.1988), aff'd per curiam on basis of decision below, 871 F.2d 22 (4th Cir.1989); Snow v. Bechtel Constr. Inc., 647 F.Supp. 1514 (C.D.Cal.1986); Chrisman v. Philips Indus., Inc., 242 Kan. 772, 751 P.2d 140 ......
  • 570 A.2d 1289 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1990), Maher v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • March 9, 1990
    ...493 U.S. 876, 110 S.Ct. 213, 107 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989), relied upon by N.J. Transit, inapplicable. See also English v. General Elec. Co., 871 F.2d 22, 23 (4th Cir.1989), cert. granted 493 U.S. 1055, 110 S.Ct. 862, 107 L.Ed.2d 946 (1990) holding that a state law claim alleging a retaliatory dis......
  • 711 F.Supp. 988 (N.D.Cal. 1989), C-89-0770, Gaballah v. PG & E
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • May 10, 1989
    ...103 S.Ct. at 1722. The issue of conflict was addressed in English v. General Elec. Co., 683 F.Supp. 1006, 1013-14 (E.D.N.C.1988), aff'd, 871 F.2d 22 (4th Cir.1989). Relying on subsection (g), which bars relief under section 210 for any employee who, without direction from the employer, inte......
  • 895 F.2d 1295 (10th Cir. 1990), 88-1345, Masters v. Daniel Intern. Corp.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • February 6, 1990
    ...in this circuit. Other circuits which have ruled on this issue have reached differing conclusions. In English v. General Electric Co., 871 F.2d 22 (4th Cir.1989) the Court found that the Energy Reorganization Act was intended by Congress to be the exclusive remedy for employees who allege d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT