Case Name:Durham v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oklahoma, Inc. [2011, State (OK)]

Court:

Case #:

1. The FACTS of the case: What happened? Who was involved? What were the legal issues?

2. The HOLDING of the court: What was the decision of the court?

3. The REASONING of the court: Why did the court reach its decision?

4. What other significant elements should be included in the summary? Dissent?

Durham v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oklahoma, Inc. 256 P.3d 64 (Okla. 2011)

Camran Durham filed an intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuit in an Oklahoma court against his former employer, McDonald's Restaurants of Oklahoma, Inc. Durham based his claim on the behavior of a McDonald's manager (Durham's former supervisor) who, during Durham's employment, denied three requests by Durham that he be allowed to take his prescription anti-seizure medication. In the course of denying the last request, the manager called Durham a "f . . . ing retard." Durham, who was 16 years old at the time, alleged that the manager's refusals caused him to fear he would suffer a seizure. Durham alleged that he left work crying after the incident and did not return.

McDonald's moved for summary judgment but did not controvert Durham's account of the incident. Instead, McDonald's argued that the manager's conduct did not amount to "extreme and outrageous" conducta required element of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In so arguing, McDonald's relied on an earlier federal court disposition of claims made by Durham under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In denying Durham recovery on his ADA claims, the federal court determined that the manager's conduct was "not severe."

The trial court in Durham's state court case concluded that the federal court disposition of the ADA claims constituted a binding determination of the "extreme and outrageous" element of Durham's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of McDonald's. Durham appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed. Durham appealed to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Reif, Judge

In order to prove the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (or outrage), a plaintiff must prove each of the following elements: (1) the alleged tortfeasor acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the alleged tortfeasor's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the conduct caused the plaintiff emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe. In the case at hand, McDonald's has argued that the federal court [decision regarding Durham's ADA claims effectively] adjudicated the second and fourth elements of the tort, and, therefore, Durham's claim is barred by [the] issue preclusion [doctrine].

The Court of Civil Appeals found that the federal court had necessarily determined that the manager's conduct was "not severe" in disposing of the federal ADA claims. Noting that Black's Law Dictionary treats "extreme" as a synonym for "severe," the Court of Civil Appeals [concluded] that conduct which is not severe cannot be "extreme and outrageous" under the applicable law. [According to Oklahoma case law,] "extreme and outrageous" conduct requires the existence of conduct so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and which is viewed as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. In general, a defendant's conduct must be such that an average member of the community would exclaim, "Outrageous!" [Citations omitted.]

The chief problem we have with [the analysis of the Court of Civil Appeals] is that it was not necessary for the federal court to make any determination about the character of the manager's conduct in disposing of the federal litigation. All of Durham's claims under the ADA, including [a] hostile working environment and constructive discharge claim, were dependent upon [Durham's being] a "disabled person." The federal court determined [that Durham] was not a disabled person. [Durham's] status as a disabled person was the linchpin of federal question jurisdiction and the determination of this issue adversely to [Durham] ended the court's jurisdiction to decide any other issue concerning the ADA claims. [Under the circumstances, the federal court did not have] power to rule on any other matter affecting the parties. The Court of Civil Appeals [therefore] erred in ruling that the federal court disposition of the ADA claims was preclusive of the extreme and outrageous element of plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

When this Court reviews a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress that has been rejected by the Court of Civil Appeals, we will make the "gatekeeper" or threshold determination of whether the defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded as extreme and outrageous. The test is whether the conduct is so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and is atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. In the case at hand, we find that the manager's use of "f . . . ing retard" in addressing a minor employee who is filled with apprehension after being denied permission to take anti-seizure medication may reasonably be regarded as meeting this test. We further find that reasonable people might differ on this issue, but could nonetheless similarly conclude that such conduct meets the test of [being] extreme and outrageous. Where this threshold is satisfied, the issue of whether a defendant's conduct is extreme and outrageous is for a jury to decide.

In its motion for summary judgment, McDonald's also asserted that Durham cannot prove the severe emotional distress element of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The motion pointed out that the trial court could make the "gatekeeper" or threshold determination concerning this element [and resolve it against Durham] based on the federal court disposition of the ADA claims. [It is important to note, however, that] the federal court did not determine whether Durham suffered severe emotional distress. Our review of [Durham's] evidentiary materials leads us to the . . . conclusion [that there is a substantial controversy between the parties regarding the severe emotional distress element].

Intentional infliction of emotional distress does not provide redress for every invasion of emotional serenity or every anti-social act that may produce hurt feelings. While emotional distress can include all highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, worry, and nausea, it must be so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. The intensity and duration of the distress are factors to be considered in determining severity, but the type of distress must be reasonable and justified under the circumstances. It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether based upon the evidence presented, severe emotional distress can be found. [Citations omitted.]

At the time the manager refused permission to take the anti-seizure medicine, Durham related that he "was getting scared he might die [or] he could bite off his tongue or fall and hurt himself." After the manager called him a "f . . . ing retard," he ran out the door crying. As a consequence of this treatment, Durham stated he became "withdrawn" and "a recluse." He recounted that "[h]e felt he couldn't anything [and] was afraid he would suffer the same experience at another job." His mother related that he "wouldn't go outside, slept all day, and had to be home schooled." She stated that he "became depressed and introverted." She reported that "he was no longer active [and] lost interest in everything." Durham believed that a school friend who worked at McDonald's told other school friends about the incident. They began calling plaintiff a "f . . . ing retard" and teased him by saying, "I hear you can't even keep a job at McDonald's because you're a f . . . ing retard."

Viewing the evidentiary materials in a light most favorable to plaintiff Durham [(as we are required to do in reviewing the grant of summary judgment against him)], we hold that the highly unpleasant mental reactions that plaintiff Durham and his mother described are reasonable and justified under the circumstances. We also hold that they go beyond mere hurt feelings, insult, indignity, and annoyance and could be reasonably regarded to constitute emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. In such cases, "[i]t is for the jury to determine whether, on the evidence, severe emotional distress in fact existed." [Citation omitted.]

Grant of summary judgment in favor of McDonald's reversed; case remanded for further proceedings.