skip to Main Content

EMPLOYMENT LAW: Count Alleging Infliction of Emotional Distress in Connection with Discharge From Employment Struck

EMPLOYMENT LAW: Count Alleging Infliction Of Emotional Distress In Connection With Discharge From Employment Struck

The plaintiff alleged that the former employer terminated the plaintiff’s employment because the plaintiff allegedly refused to tolerate sexual harassment on the job and gave the plaintiff a pretextual reason for his termination.

The Superior Court concludes that these allegations were insufficient to set forth a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in the employment setting.  The court holds that the mere act of firing an employee, even if wrongfully motivated, does not transgress the bounds of socially tolerable conduct as required to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in this context under binding Supreme Court precedent.

Attorney Philip R. Dunn, Jr. of Jackson O’Keefe argued that the alleged conduct did not occur in the actual termination, despite Supreme Court precedent requiring that the alleged misconduct occur in the termination itself in order to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against an employer.  The court agreed, further noting that while the plaintiff’s claim of the defendant’s conduct could support his claim of retaliatory discharge under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, it is insufficient to support a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in the termination of his employment.

James v. Jumoke Academy, Inc., CV16-6064610-S (5/9/16 Huddleston, J.)