Pest Analysis
Essay Preview: Pest Analysis
Report this essay
Business Law
Professor Freston
Monday Class 6-10pm
Case Brief -Chapter 5
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
March 10, 08
GTE Southwest Inc. v. Bruce
998 S.W. 2d 605 (1999)
FACTS
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 worked as a supervisor in GTEs supply department in Jacksonville, Arkansas. During his tenure there, four of Shieldss [**2] 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 Shieldss 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. Like the GTE employees in Jacksonville, Bruce, Davis, and Poelstra complained to GTE of Shieldss conduct, alleging that Shields constantly harassed and intimidated them. GTE investigated these complaints in [**3] 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 Shieldss conduct. In March 1994, the employees filed suit, alleging that GTE intentionally inflicted emotional distress on them through Shields.
ISSUE
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. GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 956 S.W.2d 636. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Issue: 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.
RULE
An employee may recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress in an employment context as long as the employee establishes the elements of the cause of action. See Wornick Co. v. Casas, 856 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tex. 1993). HN11 To recover