Appleton v. Board of Education
Decision Date | 15 August 2000 |
Docket Number | (SC 16137) |
Citation | 254 Conn. 205,757 A.2d 1059 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | SANDRA APPLETON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF STONINGTON ET AL. |
McDonald, C. J., and Borden, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, JS. Michael C. Deakin, for the appellants (defendants).
Gilbert Shasha, with whom, on the brief, was Juri E. Taalman, for the appellee (plaintiff).
The issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims for (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (2) tortious interference with contractual relations. Following our grant of certification; Appleton v. Board of Education, 249 Conn. 927, 733 A.2d 847 (1999); the defendants, the board of education of the town of Stonington (board), Cherri Rifenburg, the principal of Deans Mill School in Stonington, and Anthony Vacca, assistant principal of Deans Mill School, appealed from the Appellate Court's judgment reversing the trial court's rendering of summary judgment for the defendants on the second and third counts of the plaintiff's complaint. Appleton v. Board of Education, 53 Conn. App. 252, 730 A.2d 88 (1999). We reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court's opinion provides the following undisputed facts. "The plaintiff was a tenured teacher who had a contract with the board that began in 1963. Beginning in September, 1995, Rifenburg voiced her displeasure with the plaintiff because she believed that the plaintiff failed to monitor a student properly concerning attendance at an after school program. The particular incident involved a situation in which one of the plaintiff's students boarded a school bus for home when he was supposed to be attending the after school program. The student's parents, who were not at home at the time, registered a complaint with the school. "Subsequently, the plaintiffs competency as a teacher was questioned by the defendants. On September 15, 1995, Rifenburg and a school psychologist met with the plaintiff in her classroom following a report by another teacher that the plaintiff was acting in a strange manner. During this period, Vacca and Rifenburg expressed concern about the plaintiffs health.
Appleton v. Board of Education, supra, 53 Conn. App. 255-56.
After her resignation, the plaintiff brought this action alleging breach of contract against the board, intentional infliction of emotional distress against all three defendants, and tortious interference with contractual relations against Rifenburg and Vacca. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all three counts of the plaintiffs complaint. The plaintiff then appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the rendition of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, but reversed the entry of summary judgment on the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with contractual relations. Id., 268. We granted certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs claims for (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (2) tortious interference with contractual relations?" Appleton v. Board of Education, supra, 249 Conn. 927.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rivera v. Double A Transportation, Inc., 248 Conn. 21, 24-25, 727 A.2d 204 (1999).
The defendants contend first that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that they were not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, they claim that: (1) the plaintiffs resignation from her employment is fatal to her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (2) the conduct alleged in the plaintiffs complaint and affidavit is not actionable because it was not extreme and outrageous. We agree with the second of these contentions. Therefore, we need not consider the defendants' contention that the plaintiffs resignation was fatal to her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Petyan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243, 253, 510 A.2d 1337 (1986). Whether a defendant's conduct is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that it be extreme and outrageous is initially a question for the court to determine. Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 410, 739 A.2d 321 (1999). Only where reasonable minds disagree does it become an issue for the jury. Id.
Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct that exceeds "`all bounds usually tolerated by decent society ....'" Petyan v. Ellis, supra, 200 Conn. 254 n.5, quoting W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts (5th Ed. 1984) § 12, p. 60. 1 Restatement (Second), Torts § 46, comment (d), p. 73 (1965). "Conduct on the part of the defendant that is merely insulting or displays bad manners or results in hurt feelings is insufficient to form the basis for an action based upon intentional infliction of emotional distress." Mellaly v. Eastman Kodak Co., 42 Conn. Sup. 17, 19, 597 A.2d 846 (1991).
The conduct of the defendants in the present case is described in the plaintiff's affidavit in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Rifenburg's opposing affidavit does not raise any genuine issue of material fact concerning the defendants' conduct. The plaintiff complains that Rifenburg: "made condescending comments to [her] in front of [her] fellow colleagues questioning [her] vision and ability to read"; telephoned the plaintiffs daughter, representing that the plaintiff "had been acting differently" and should take a few days off from work; and telephoned the police, who came...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Farrar v. Town of Stratford
...requirement that it be extreme and outrageous is initially a question for the court to determine." Appleton v. Bd. of Educ. of Town of Stonington, 254 Conn. 205, 210, 757 A.2d 1059 (2000). "`Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme ......
-
Gleason v. Smolinski, SC 19342
...intentional infliction of emotional distress independent of any constitutionally protected conduct. But see Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205, 211, 757 A.2d 1059 (2000) ("[c]onduct on the part of the defendant that is merely insulting or displays bad manners or results in hurt f......
-
Claude v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-00535 (VLB)
...of the plaintiff's distress; and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was severe." Appleton v. Bd. of Educ. of Town of Stonington, 254 Conn. 205, 210 (2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "Whether a defendant's conduct is sufficient to satisfy the re......
-
El Badrawi v. Department of Homeland Sec.
...was what caused the plaintiffs distress; and (4) the plaintiff sustained emotional distress that was severe. Appleton v. Bd. of Educ., 254 Conn. 205, 210, 757 A.2d 1059 (2000). The government challenges El Badrawi's claim only on the second prong. See Federal Defendants' Mem. at To fit the ......
-
Related State Torts
...trivialities do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct. For example: • Connecticut: Appleton v. Board of Education , 254 Conn. 205, 210-11, 757 A.2d 1059 (2000) (“Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct that exceeds all bounds usually tol......
-
Labor Relations and Employment Law
...89 Id. at 764-65. 90 Id. at 765. 91 Id. at 768. 92 Id. at 769. 93 Id. at 770 (citations omitted). 94 Id. at 771-72. 95 Id. at 772 n.7. 96 254 Conn. 205, 757 A.2d 1059 (2000). 97 Id. at 207-08. 98 Id. at 208. 99 Id. 100 Id. 101 53 Conn. App. 252, 730 A.2d 88 (1999), rev'd., 254 Conn. 205, 75......
-
Significant Recent Tort Developments
...insufficient to support an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.(fn391) The Supreme (fn384)Id. at 220-23. 385 254 Conn. 205, 757 A.2d 1059 (2000). 386 Id. at 208. 387 Id. at 208. 388 Id. at 208-209. 389 Id. at 210. 390 Id. at 211. 391 Id. at 212. Court also agreed that th......
-
Survey of 2016 Developments in Labor and Employment Law
...Id. at *4. [264] No. WWM-CV-14-6008998-S, 2016 WL 5107842 (Conn. Super. Ct. August 11, 2016). [265] Id. at *1, *3. [266] Id. at *3. [267] 254 Conn. 205, 210, 757 A. 2d 1059 (2000). [268] Id. [269] Id. [270] Richard, 2016 WL 5107842 at *4-5. [271] No. HHD-CV-16-6067482-S, 2016 WL 8135397 (Co......