Phinazee v. Interstate Nationalease, Inc., A98A2234.
Decision Date | 16 March 1999 |
Docket Number | No. A98A2234.,A98A2234. |
Citation | 514 S.E.2d 843,237 Ga. App. 39 |
Parties | PHINAZEE v. INTERSTATE NATIONALEASE, INC. et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Thomas, Means, Gillis, Devlin, Robinson & Seay, Marvin A. Devlin, Quinton Seay, Jennifer D. Odom, Atlanta, for appellant.
Fisher & Phillips, Griffin B. Bell, Jr., Ilene W. Berman, Atlanta, for appellees.
Stanley Phinazee appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to his former employer, Interstate Nationalease, Inc. (Interstate), and Jim Stokley, 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 USC § 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 judgment1 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; (and) (4) The emotional distress must be severe." (Punctuation omitted.) Hendrix v. Phillips, 207 Ga.App. 394, 395(1), 428 S.E.2d 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 S.E.2d 222 (1998). Moreover, (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bowers v. Estep, 204 Ga.App. 615, 618(2), 420 S.E.2d 336 (1992).
Odem v. Pace Academy, 235 Ga.App. 648, 654-655(2), 510 S.E.2d 326 (1998).
This Court conducts a de novo review of the evidence in reviewing the grant or denial of summary judgment. Goring v. Martinez, 224 Ga.App. 137, 138(2), 479 S.E.2d 432 (1996). The trial court's order below did not specify the basis upon which summary judgment was granted, but Jimerson v. Republic Land & Investment Co., 234 Ga.App. 417, 420(3), 506 S.E.2d 920 (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 law2 are sufficient to prevent summary judgment to defendants on Phinazee's infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention state claims.
(Emphasis supplied.) Brewer v. Schacht, 235 Ga.App. 313, 315(1), 509 S.E.2d 378 (1998). See also Smith v. Maytag Corp., 216 Ga.App. 676, 679(2), 455 S.E.2d 379 (1995).
The issue of whether race was the basis for the supervisory actions taken by Stokley which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tapley v. Collins
...the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) The emotional distress must be severe. Phinazee v. Interstate Nationalease, Inc., 237 Ga.App. 39, 514 S.E.2d 843, 844 (1999) (quotes, cite, punctuation and brackets omitted). Courts decide, as a matter of law, "[w]hether a claim rises......
-
Pierri v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
...claim is essentially a derivative claim of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. See Phinazee v. Interstate Nationalease, Inc., 237 Ga.App. 39, 514 S.E.2d 843, 846 (1999) (citing Coleman, 381 S.E.2d at The Court initially notes that Plaintiff's negligent retention claim is ......
-
Bozeman v. Per-Se Technologies, Inc.
...bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Phinazee v. Interstate Nationalease, Inc., 237 Ga.App. 39, 514 S.E.2d 843, 845 (1999). The Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to emotional distress when he was harassed by defendant Moo......
-
Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta/Lowndes Cnty. v. Fender
...489 (2), 634 S.E.2d 466 (2006) ; Oswell v. Nixon , 275 Ga. App. 205, 208 (1), 620 S.E.2d 419 (2005) ; Phinazee v. Interstate Nationalease , 237 Ga. App. 39, 41, 514 S.E.2d 843 (1999) ; Coleman v. Housing Auth. of Americus , 191 Ga. App. 166, 167 (1), 381 S.E.2d 303 (1989). Thus, where, as h......
-
Sexual Harassment Claims Under Georgia Law
...381 S.E.2d 303 (1989). 22 Coleman, 191 Ga. App. at 167, 381 S. E.2d at 304. 23. Id. See also Phinazee v. Interstate Nationalease, Inc., 237 Ga. App. 39, 42, 5514 843 (1999); Harvey Freeman & Sons, Inc. v. Stanley, 259 Ga. 233, 233, 378 S.E.2d 857, 858 (1989) (underlying conduct by employee ......