Summary
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim brought by a former Georgetown University employee. The court held that allegations of prolonged, unbearable noise, resulting health effects, and defendants’ refusal to intervene were sufficient to survive a Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6) motion, reversing and remanding the dismissal. Judge Farrell dissented, concluding that the allegations did not describe conduct sufficiently outrageous to support the tort.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint adequately stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under the District of Columbia's Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard.
- Whether the appeal from the order denying reconsideration remained justiciable after reversal of the underlying dismissal.
Holdings
- Taking the allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in Larijani's favor, a reasonable juror could find that the alleged prolonged, unbearable noise, defendants' knowledge of its serious effects, and their failure to stop it constituted sufficiently extreme and outrageous conduct to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- The appeal from the order denying reconsideration was moot after the court reversed the underlying dismissal.
Key quotations
“The sufficiency vel non of the complaint raises a question of law, and we therefore owe no deference to the trial court and review the order of dismissal de novo.” (791 A.2d at 43)
“Taking Ms. Larijani's allegations as true, and construing the complaint in the light most favorable to her, we cannot agree that Ms. Larijani would have been precluded from recovery under any state of facts which could have been proved in support of her claim.” (791 A.2d at 44)
“We are constrained to answer this question in the affirmative.” (791 A.2d at 44-45)
“In our view, a reasonable person would indeed exclaim "Outrageous!" if the noise was as unbearable as the plaintiff claimed; if, as a result, her health suffered as badly as she alleged; and if the defendants, knowingly and callously, did absolutely nothing about it.” (791 A.2d at 45)
Factual background
Larijani, a former Georgetown University library employee, alleged that her supervisor placed two noise-making devices near her workstation and activated them throughout every workday for approximately nine months. She alleged that the noise caused severe physical and emotional injuries, that she repeatedly requested that it stop, and that both her supervisor and Georgetown University declined to take corrective action despite notice of the harm.
Procedural history
Larijani sued Georgetown University and her supervisor, Jane L. Blumenthal, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the alleged use of noise-making devices at her workplace. The Superior Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss on October 30, 2000, and denied reconsideration on December 19, 2000. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and dismissed as moot the appeal from the reconsideration order.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion; the appeal from the order denying reconsideration is dismissed as moot.