PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia federal judge has ruled that a woman who was allegedly subjected to repeated incidents of sexual harassment and filed suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, will be permitted to proceed with her case on that charge.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gerald A. McHugh handed down his opinion on Jan. 25, upholding Shanika Smith’s count of IIED against RB Distribution, Inc. and others.
In her suit, Smith alleged that her co-worker, Jose Rosario, sexually harassed her from the spring of 2017 until his termination from the company in June 2018. Rosario allegedly made graphic, sexualized statements to Smith and attempted to grope her vagina on one occasion.
After Smith filed a complaint against defendant, she contends that he continued in his harassment, offering Smith money to perform sexual favors. And in retaliation for her complaint, Rosario allegedly enlisted another coworker to help him sabotage Smith’s work performance.
Smith first filed her complaint in federal district court on Feb. 18, 2020, with claims against defendant, including discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, retaliation under the PHRA, aiding and abetting under the PHRA, discrimination under the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, retaliation under the PFPO, aiding and abetting under the PFPO, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault and battery.
Later, Smith consented to the dismissal of all of the counts against the defendant, save her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and declaratory relief.
McHugh said to raise liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, “(1) The conduct [of the defendant] must be extreme and outrageous; (2) It must be intentional or reckless; (3) It must cause emotional distress; [and] (4) The distress must be severe.”
“Applying the elements of a claim approach, an IIED claim that is founded upon sexual harassment will accrue when the defendant’s intentional or reckless conduct rises to the level of ‘extreme and outrageous’ behavior and causes severe emotional distress,” McHugh stated.
“The burden of demonstrating ‘outrageous’ conduct is substantial. Harassment may only suffice when it is viewed cumulatively, and some courts have therefore included harassing conduct that precedes the two-year limitations period in their analysis.”
McHugh added that a reasonable jury would not have sufficient evidence on which to find extreme and outrageous conduct before Rosario’s harassment ended in June 2018, and he was “further persuaded by the fact that Smith certainly had full knowledge of her injury by the time Rosario was terminated.”
“Accordingly, Ms. Smith’s IIED claim began to accrue in June 2018 and remained timely as of her Feb. 18, 2020 complaint,” McHugh concluded.
While Smith’s IIED claim was permitted to proceed, McHugh added that declaratory relief could not be obtained to adjudicate past conduct, since he felt that was no concrete and ongoing controversy.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00900
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com