An Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress

Ms. Stockton will likely be able to meet to the first element of the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ms. Stockton must prove that the radio station broadcasters intended to inflict emotional distress or that the broadcasters

Abuse is behaviour towards a person which deliberately or unintentionally causes harm to them. It is a violation of an individual’s human and civil rights and in the worst cases can result in death.

In this instance, Griffith would not be sheltered from retaliation under the traditional state and federal whistleblower laws. Federal laws generally protect those that disclose fraud against the government and state law NY Code 740 covers private sector and only when the complaint has been brought to the supervisor first. In the complaint against the State of New York et al the District Court ruled that Griffith’s first amendment rights and first amendment retaliation claims would not be summarily dismissed.

Facts: In Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993), the Court was asked to decide a dispute between an employer (Davis) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Davis committed unfair labor practices, which Davis disputed. A union (Local 23) was attempting to organize a local at Davis. Several employees signed authorization cards for the union. Six of those employees were terminated in a mass layoff that impacted eight employees. Davis then fired or constructively fired three more employees who had filed authorization cards. Davis's chairman of the board then informed employees that he wanted them to sign authorizations with the Steelworkers, a competing union. However, Davis maintained that the employees were terminated for cause, not because they signed authorization cards for Local 23.

Marcus Ashmore and Terrell Lee Green were maintenance workers for J.P. Thayer Co., Inc. under supervisor Gene Fye. After a particular incident of harassment on January 16, 2001, Plaintiffs reported Fye to Tricia Johnson, the Assistant Property Manager. At this time, Johnson did nothing about the complaint. The harassment continued, and on January 26, Plaintiffs complained to the Property Manager, Mary Frances de Rivera. In response, de Rivera verbally reprimanded Fye. This, however, did not stop Fye’s harassment. Instead of reporting the behavior to Defendant, Plaintiffs hired an attorney who wrote a letter to Defendant saying that Ashmore and Green were going to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC. On February 22, Fye was fired by Defendant. This came three days after getting the letter and about a month after the initial harassment complaints.

a. When workers’ urged for a union organized campaign, the company reacted in such a vicious manner that the National Labor Relations Board had to step in. (Dreier 2004 )

The company offered inconsistent versions of why Mr. Gill was terminated and who did the termination. They were indifferent to Mr. Gill’s concerns and did nothing to address those employees engaging in blatant racial harassment even after other black employees complained and, most damaging, the company retaliated against Mr. Gill when he complained by terminating his

contributed a strike dictating higher wages and cut on hours with an acknowledgment of their union by

Taylor suffered serious emotional distress, part of which was fear for his and Mya’s life which led them to fleeing their home state of Massachusetts as a result of Murray’s continuous intimidations during four months. The issue in this case is whether Taylor has a claim against Murray for the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Under Massachusetts law, the court will likely conclude that Taylor has a claim against Murray for his conduct toward Taylor because (1) Murray intentionally inflicted emotional distress to Taylor; (2) Murray’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) Murray’s conduct directly caused Taylor’s emotional distress; and (4) Taylor’s emotional distress was severe. See Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 144-45 (Mass. 1976); Quinn v. Walsh, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 696, 706-07 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000); Cady v. Marcella, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 340-41, (Mass. App. Ct. 2000).

In Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. in the 1970s, Lois Jenson was also subject to a similar situation where a Hostile Work Environment was created in her job at Eleventh Taconite mine Co. in Minnesota, where she was regularly threatened and harrassed in a secual manner and felt

This is an unfair labor practice charge that the Regional Director’s agent Holly Beaverstock they will be dismissing. Our position is that there is a conflict in the evidence regarding whether Francis was terminated in retaliation for his lawful protected activities. There are two (2) prior ULP complaint’s that have been issued which directly affect Paul Francis. One (1) is the Charge that Employee’s where prohibited from discussing Union’s during company time and the other is in May when Francis was sent home for the day discriminatorily pursuant to the Complaint that was issued in 152409 and 152432.

Most parents and other caregivers do not intend to hurt their children, but abuse is defined by the effect on the child, not the motivation of the parents or caregiver.Tens of thousands of children each year are traumatized by physical, sexual, and emotional abusers or by caregivers who neglect them.Child abuse as common as it is shocking. Most of us can’t imagine what would make an adult use violence against a child, and the worse the behavior is, the more unimaginable it seems. But the incidence of parents and other caregivers consciously, even willfully, committing acts that harm the very children they’re supposed to be nurturing is a sad fact of human society that cuts

In order to make a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress it must be shown that there was: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) with the intent to cause, or the disregard of a substantial likelihood of causing, severe emotional distress; (3) direct causation; and (4) severe emotional distress. Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 121, 596 N.Y.S.2d 350, 353 (N.Y.1993). The only element at

adamantly opposed any recognition of the union. Thus, the union members decided to strike over wages, safety

There are different types of child abuse. However the core* of child abuse is all the same. It always leaves a huge effect on the child. Children need predictability*, structure, clear