GTE Southwest v. Bruce
Decision Date | 01 July 1999 |
Citation | 998 S.W.2d 605 |
Parties | (Tex. 1999) GTE SOUTHWEST, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, v. RHONDA BRUCE, LINDA DAVIS, AND JOYCE POELSTRA, RESPONDENTS NO. 98-0028 |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] JUSTICE ABBOTT delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE PHILLIPS, JUSTICE HECHT, JUSTICE ENOCH, JUSTICE BAKER, JUSTICE HANKINSON, JUSTICE O'NEILL, and JUSTICE GONZALES join.
In this case we determine whether three GTE Southwest, Incorporated employees may recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the workplace conduct of their supervisor. The trial court rendered judgment for the employees on the jury verdict, and the court of appeals affirmed. 956 S.W.2d 636. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Three GTE employees, Rhonda Bruce, Linda Davis, and Joyce Poelstra, sued GTE for intentional infliction of emotional distress premised on the constant humiliating and abusive behavior of their supervisor, Morris Shields. Shields is a former U.S. Army supply sergeant who began working for GTE in 1971. Between 1981 and May 1991, Shields worked as a supervisor in GTE's supply department in Jacksonville, Arkansas. During his tenure there, four of Shields's subordinate employees (none of the employees involved in this case) filed formal grievances against Shields with GTE, alleging that Shields constantly harassed them. As a result of these complaints, GTE investigated Shields's conduct in 1988 and 1989, but took no formal disciplinary action against him.
In May 1991, GTE transferred Shields from Jacksonville to Nash, Texas, where he became the supply operations supervisor. The supply department at Nash was small, consisting of two offices and a store room. There were approximately eight employees other than Shields. Bruce, Davis, and Poelstra ("the employees") worked under Shields at the Nash facility. Like the GTE employees in Jacksonville, Bruce, Davis, and Poelstra complained to GTE of Shields's conduct, alleging that Shields constantly harassed and intimidated them. The employees complained about Shields's daily use of profanity, short temper, and his abusive and vulgar dictatorial manner. The employees complained that, among other offensive acts Shields repeatedly yelled, screamed, cursed, and even "charged" at them. In addition, he intentionally humiliated and embarrassed the employees.
GTE investigated these complaints in April 1992, after which GTE issued Shields a "letter of reprimand." After the reprimand, Shields discontinued some of his egregious conduct, but did not end it completely.
Eventually, Bruce, Davis, and Poelstra sought medical treatment for emotional distress caused by Shields's conduct. In March 1994, the employees filed suit, alleging that GTE intentionally inflicted emotional distress on them through Shields. The employees asserted no causes of action other than intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury awarded $100,000.00 plus prejudgment interest to Bruce, $100,000.00 plus interest to Davis, and $75,000.00 plus interest to Poelstra.
GTE argues that, because it is a subscriber to the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, the employees' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred by the Act, which provides the exclusive remedy for an employee covered by workers' compensation insurance against an employer for a work-related injury. See TEX. LAB. CODE 408.001. GTE contends that the Act provides compensation for the employees' injuries, and accordingly, the Act bars the employees' claims unless they can show that GTE committed an intentional tort. See Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932, 933 (Tex. 1983). The employees respond that the Act cannot bar their intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because their injuries are not in fact compensable under the Act.
The court of appeals held that the Act did not bar the employees' claims because GTE was alleged to have committed intentional acts by and through its supervisor, Morris Shields. 956 S.W.2d at 639; see Medina v. Herrera, 927 S.W.2d 597, 600 (Tex. 1996) ( ). Because it held that the tort was directly attributable to GTE, the court of appeals did not consider whether the employees' injuries were compensable under the Act in the first instance. We conclude that the employees' injuries are not compensable under the Act.
The employees allege that they suffered severe emotional distress, which manifested "in the form of tension, nervousness, anxiety, depression, loss of appetite, inability to sleep, crying spells, and uncontrollable emotional outbursts." Because of these problems, the employees sought medical and psychological treatment. GTE argues that the employees' emotional distress is a "compensable injury," defined by the Act as "an injury that arises out of and in the course and scope of employment for which compensation is payable under this subtitle," because the Act provides compensation for psychological services prescribed by a doctor. TEX. LAB. CODE 401.011(10), 401.011(19)(C). Although the Act provides compensation for the types of medical care obtained by the employees, the definition of "injury" under the Act must still be satisfied before such compensation is allowed. Thus, we must determine whether the employees' allegations establish an "injury" for which compensation is payable under the Act.
The Act defines "injury" as "damage or harm to the physical structure of the body and a disease or infection naturally resulting from the damage or harm," including an occupational disease. Id. 401.011(26). An "occupational disease" is defined as "a disease arising out of and in the course of employment that causes damage or harm to the physical structure of the body, including a repetitive trauma injury." Id. 401.011(34). A "repetitive trauma injury" means "damage or harm to the physical structure of the body occurring as the result of repetitious, physically traumatic activities that occur over time and arise out of and in the course and scope of employment." Id. 401.011(36).
This Court has liberally construed the word "injury" in cases involving emotional distress and traumatic neurosis. See Olson v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 477 S.W.2d 859, 860 (Tex. 1972). The phrase "physical structure of the body" refers to the entire body, and emotional distress may constitute an "injury" when it results in malfunctioning of the physical structure of the body. Transportation Ins. Co. v. Maksyn, 580 S.W.2d 334, 336-37 & n.2 (Tex. 1979); Bailey v. American Gen. Ins. Co., 279 S.W.2d 315, 318-19 (Tex. 1955).
We have previously considered whether an injury caused by repetitious mental traumatic activity rather than physical activity is compensable under the Act. In Maksyn, the employee suffered from "anxiety depression" attributed to long hours and stress. Maksyn, 580 S.W.2d at 334-35. We held that repetitive mental trauma resulting in injury is not a compensable occupational disease under the Act. Id. at 337-39. However, we also recognized that an employee may recover for an accidental injury due to mental trauma (as opposed to an occupational disease) when there is evidence of an undesigned, untoward event traceable to a definite time, place, and cause. Id. at 336-37; see also Brown v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n, 635 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Tex. 1982); Olson, 477 S.W.2d at 859-60.
GTE argues that the employees' injuries are traceable to a definite time, place, and cause - namely, Morris Shields's behavior toward the employees at GTE from March 1, 1992 to October 1, 1993. GTE relies on Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division v. Camarata, 768 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1989, no writ), in which the court of appeals held the employee's post-traumatic stress syndrome to be a compensable accidental injury because it was traceable to the particular event of seeing a supervisor's memo criticizing his work performance.
A survey of the cases allowing recovery for accidental injuries due to mental trauma indicates that, in each case, as in Camarata, the injuries were caused by a particular exciting event. See, e.g., Bailey, 279 S.W.2d at 316 ( ); Hood v. Texas Indem. Ins. Co., 209 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. 1948) ( ); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 417 S.W.2d 630 (Tex. Civ. App.-El Paso 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( ); see also Maksyn, 580 S.W.2d at 336-37 () (emphasis added); Olson, 477 S.W.2d at 860 (). In contrast, we have found no case allowing recovery for injuries resulting from repetitive mental trauma. See, e.g., Maksyn, 580 S.W.2d at 338-39; Olson, 477 S.W.2d at 860; Jackson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 580 S.W.2d 70, 71-72 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( ).1
Here, the employees alleged that the cause of their distress was the continuing harassment and abuse inflicted by Shields from May 1991 to October 1993. GTE does not point to any particular event that caused the mental distress, and instead refers to the scope of events occurring over two-and-a-half years....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. Carilion Clinic
...and those to whom a corporation has confided the management of the whole or a department or division of its business."), aff'd , 998 S.W.2d 605, 618 (Tex. 1999).Parker does not allege that Davis and Young were corporate officers or authorized agents of Carilion. As a result, Carilion can on......
-
Grost v. United States
...of employment cases that an employer's conduct rises to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct." Id. (citing GTE Sw., Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605, 613 (Tex. 1999)). "Thus, to establish a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the workplace, 'an employee m......
-
In re Merrill Lynch Trust Co. Fsb
...of the employer's business and for the accomplishment of the object for which the employee was hired."); GTE Sw., Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605, 617-18 (Tex.1999) ("Generally, a master is vicariously liable for the torts of its servants committed in the course and scope of their employment.......
-
Carcamo–Lopez v. Does
...although not specifically authorized by the employer, is closely connected with the servant's authorized duties.” GTE Sw., Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605, 618 (Tex.1999). The Texas Supreme Court has illustrated the concept of a close connection in its statement that “where a security guard u......
-
Other workplace torts
...these rights in a permissible way, even though emotional distress results.” Benners , 133 S.W.3d at 373 (citing GTE S.W., Inc. v. Bruce , 998 S.W.2d 605, 612 (Tex. 1999)). See, e.g., City of Midland v. O’Bryant , 18 S.W.3d 209 (Tex. 2000) (city’s decision to reclassify positions formerly he......
-
Privacy Issues in the Workplace
...of sexual relationship between plaintiff and himself); GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce , 956 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997), aff’d 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999) (supervisor’s ongoing acts of harassment, intimidation, and vulgar behavior over two-year period constituted intentional inflicti......
-
Privacy issues in the workplace
...of sexual relationship between plaintiff and himself); GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce , 956 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 1997), aff’d 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999) (supervisor’s ongoing acts of harassment, intimidation, and vulgar behavior over two-year period constituted intentional inflict......
-
Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
...outside the scope of an ordinary employment dispute and into the realm of extreme and outrageous conduct. GTE Sw., Inc. v. Bruce , 998 S.W.2d 605, 611 (Tex. 1999); City of Hous. v. Fletcher , 63 S.W.3d 920, 921-22 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied); Vela v. Waco Indep. Sch. ......