Examining the Efficacy of the Common Law Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Bullying in the Context of the Employment Relationship

Abstract

The common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a frequently occurring lawsuit. It seems that in almost every wrongful discharge suit by a terminated employee at-will, or lawsuit to redress bullying-like conduct at work, or lawsuit pursuant to civil rights act for discrimination or harassment there appears a count for the IIED tort. As such, there are many, many IIED cases; however, this article demonstrates that there are only a handful of cases that are successful due to the various elements to the tort as well as the high evidentiary hurdles to sustain those elements. This article explicates the elements of the tort and illustrates those elements in the context of wrongful discharge, bullying, and discrimination/harassment lawsuits. The authors discuss the implications of the tort, particularly for management; and provide recommendations to employers on how to avoid liability, especially by bully-proofing the organization, and also to employees on how to sustain an IIED cause of action.

Workplace Mobbing and the Role of Human Resources Management

“…Workplace mobbing involves groups of people targeting a subordinate or coworker for humiliation, aggression, and isolation. Sadly, workplace bullying and mobbing cases are prevalent in many companies around the world, which imposes undue emotional distress on employees of ranks (Cavico, Mujtaba, Lawrence, and Muffler, 2018). Mobbing exists worldwide, with 10-15% of American workers considering themselves as victims of bullying (De Cieri, Sheehan, Donohue, Shea, & Cooper, 2019).…”

Do entrepreneurship ecosystem and managerial skills contribute to startup development?

“…The factors were education, marketing challenges, government support, managerial skills, financial access and adoption of new technology. For example, as a starting point, education can help entrepreneurs properly plan, organize, lead and control, while avoiding any torts or liabilities (Cavico and Mujtaba, 2021). According to Seyoum et al (2021), social support is another major driver of entrepreneurship, especially for women and minorities.…”

Rule Violation and Time-to-Enforcement in Weak Institutional Environments: A Good Faith Perspective

“…According to Alleyne, Hudaib, and Pike (2013), once a rule violation is detected, professional monitors (e.g., external auditors) have three options: remain silent, leave the organization, or bring the violations to light. Remaining silent (i.e., not disclosing material facts) here is interpreted as being knowingly and purposefully deceitful (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2016). Credible professionals may not remain silent because covering up a wrongdoing, if discovered, may eventually damage their reputation.…”

“…Although regulators often have faith in high-quality auditors, such auditors may not always be effective in their monitoring roles in a weak institutional environment. The existing legal and enforcement systems in China appear to foster “partner-level audit opinion shopping,” which occurs when firms, especially listed firms, successfully pressure their auditor to grant a more favorable opinion (Chen, Peng, et al, 2016) to avoid delisting or a share price decline (Aharony, Lee, & Wong, 2000; Chen, Su, & Zhao, 2000; Chen & Yuan, 2004; Wang et al, 2008). Moreover, auditing firms often find it hard to resist client management pressure and compromise because of fierce competition in the audit market (Chen, 2020).…”