| Free Trial / Sign Up | Products / Prices / Samples | About Us / Contact | FAQs | Home |
|
Latest employment law cases Summaries and links to full text |
|
Emailed directly to you and online all the time |
| Latest Cases | Advanced Search | Law Firm Directory | Arbitrator Directory | Law School Directory | Legal Resources / Memos |
| Employment Law Memo |
| Arbitration Law Memo |
| NLRB Law Memo |
| Employment Low Blog |
| Arbitration Law Blog |
| Employment Law 101 |
| Articles |
| Supreme Court Cases |
| EEOC Info |
| NLRB Info |
|
|
Robel v. Roundup Corporation
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
Docket Number: 70561-5
Title of Case: Linda Robel
v.
Roundup Corporation, D/B/a Fred Meyer, Inc.
File Date: 12/12/2002
Oral Argument Date: 05/31/2001
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Superior Court,
Spokane County;
98-2-01028-7
Honorable Linda G. Tompkins, Judge.
JUSTICES
--------
Authored by Susan J. Owens
Concurring: Gerry L. Alexander
Charles W. Johnson
Faith E Ireland
Tom Chambers
Dissenting: Bobbe J. Bridge
Richard B. Sanders
Charles Z. Smith
Barbara A. Madsen
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
Michael J. Walker
Delay Curran Thompson Pontarolo & Walker
601 W Main
Suite 1212
Spokane, WA 99201-0684
Counsel for Respondent(s)
Keller W. Allen
Allen & McLane Pc
421 W Riverside Ave
Ste 421
Spokane, WA 99201
LINDA ROBEL, )
)
Petitioner, ) No. 70561-5
)
v. ) En Banc
)
ROUNDUP CORPORATION, d/b/a )
FRED MEYER, INC., )
)
Respondent. ) Filed December 12, 2002
)
OWENS, J. -- This court is asked to decide whether the Court of Appeals
correctly reversed a bench trial judgment for petitioner Linda Robel on her
claims for disability harassment, retaliation for filing a workers'
compensation claim, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and defamation. We hold that Washington's Law Against
Discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW (the antidiscrimination statute),
supports an employee's disability based hostile work environment claim, and
conclude that the trial court's unchallenged findings of fact satisfy the
elements of such a claim. We likewise conclude that the trial court's
unchallenged findings support Robel's claim that Fred Meyer retaliated
against her for filing a workers' compensation claim. Regarding Robel's
claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, we reject the
conclusion of the Court of Appeals that
the claim should not have gone to the trier of fact. Because the trial
court's findings on the elements of outrage went unchallenged, we reinstate
the trial court's decision in Robel's favor on her outrage claim and,
consequently, will not reach the claim for negligent infliction of
emotional distress. However, because we agree with the Court of Appeals
that the allegedly defamatory communications cited in the trial court's
findings of fact were not capable of defamatory meaning, we affirm the
reversal of the trial court's judgment on the defamation claim. We deny
Robel's request for costs and reasonable attorney fees on appeal.
FACTS
The suit arises out of Linda Robel's employment from May 31, 1995, to
September 12, 1996, in the service deli at the Francis Avenue Fred Meyer
store in Spokane. On July 14, 1996, Robel sustained a workplace injury and
timely filed a workers' compensation claim. In late July, Robel was given
a light-duty assignment, 'a four-hour shift' during which she stood 'at a
display table outside the deli area offering samples of food items to
customers.' Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1333 (Finding of Fact 22). On August
1, 1996, as Robel worked at the display table, two deli workers 'laughed'
and 'acted out a slip and fall,' as 'one of them yelled 'Oh, I hurt my
back, L&I, L&I!'' Id. (Finding of Fact 23); see also Joint Ex. 201, at 30.
They 'audibly called {Robel} a 'bitch' and 'cunt.'' Id. They also 'told
customers she had lied about her back and was being punished by Fred Meyer
by 'demoing' pizzas.' Id. In journal entries for August 2, 3, 10, and 11,
Robel wrote that assistant deli manager Amy Smith and others made fun of
her, laughed, pointed, and gave her 'dirty looks.' Joint Ex. 201, at 30-
33. Robel also noted that on August 13, Smith and other deli workers would
'stare at {her}, whisper out loud, & laugh, pretend to hurt their backs &
laugh.' Id. at 34.
Robel reported the incidents to her union representative, Ron Banka.
According to Robel's journal, Banka came in on August 14, 1996, and set up
a meeting with Steve Wissink, the store director, for Friday, August 16.
After the brief meeting, Banka stopped by the deli and told Robel that
Wissink was convening a meeting of all deli employees on August 19, 1996.
At that meeting, Wissink warned the employees that future harassment could
result in termination. On August 22, 1996, deli workers 'laughed and
audibly admonished each other not to harass Robel.' CP at 1333 (Finding of
Fact 25); Joint Ex. 201, at 35. On August 28 and 30, Robel noted in her
journal that co-workers were talking about her and laughing at her, and she
recorded that, on September 2, Smith and other workers 'had a great time
making fun of {her}, calling {her} names{,} pretending to hurt their backs
& yelling L&I.' Joint Ex. 201, at 35-36, 38. On September 13, 1996, Robel
secured a two-week work release from her doctor and gave it to Smith that
same day. Before Robel left the deli, she overheard Smith comment to other
deli employees, ''Can you believe it, Linda's gonna sit on her big ass and
get paid.'' CP at 1333 (Finding of Fact 27); see also Joint Ex. 201, at
40.
Robel again contacted Banka, who in turn contacted Wissink on September 20,
1996.1 On September 24, Wissink telephoned Robel to confirm the
allegations. Robel 'told him about the C word and Bitch{,} the little
plays they were doing about {her} back.' Joint Ex. 201, at 40. On
September 28, 1996, Wissink terminated one employee. Robel never returned
to work at Fred Meyer.
On February 13, 1998, Robel filed suit against Fred Meyer, stating claims
for disability discrimination (RCW 49.60.180(3)), retaliation for filing a
workers' compensation claim (RCW 51.48.025(1)), negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The trial court denied
Fred Meyer's motion for summary judgment. At the close of a three-day
nonjury trial in September 1999, the court entered 69 findings of fact and
8 conclusions of law. Finding for Robel on all five causes of action, the
court awarded Robel $1,902.50 in special damages and $50,000.00 in general
damages, along with her reasonable attorney fees and costs.
Fred Meyer appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
judgment on all claims. Robel v. Roundup Corp., 103 Wn. App. 75, 10 P.3d
1104 (2000). We granted Robel's petition for review.
ISSUES
(1) Does the antidiscrimination statute support an employee's disability
based hostile work environment claim? If so, did the trial court's
unchallenged findings of fact support its conclusion of law that Fred Meyer
discriminated against Robel based upon her physical disability?
(2) Did the trial court's unchallenged findings of fact support the
conclusion that Fred Meyer, in violation of RCW 51.48.025(1), retaliated
against Robel for filing a workers' compensation claim?
(3) Did the Court of Appeals properly hold as a matter of law that Robel's
claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress should not go to the
trier of fact?
(4) Were the allegedly defamatory communications cited in the trial
court's findings of fact capable of defamatory meaning?
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review. Fred Meyer assigned error to all of the trial court's
conclusions of law but challenged none of its findings of fact. Br. of
Appellant at 1-2. Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal. State v.
Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 697, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997); State v. Hill, 123 Wn.2d
641, 644, 647, 870 P.2d 313 (1994). This court reviews de novo Fred
Meyer's challenges to the trial court's conclusions of law. State v.
Johnson, 128 Wn.2d 431, 443, 909 P.2d 293 (1996). Because '{a} conclusion
of law is a conclusion of law wherever it appears,' any conclusion of law
erroneously denominated a finding of fact will be subject to de novo
review. Kane v. Klos, 50 Wn.2d 778, 788, 314 P.2d 672 (1957); see also
Local Union 1296, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Kennewick, 86
Wn.2d 156, 161-62, 542 P.2d 1252 (1975).
Disability Discrimination. Under the antidiscrimination statute, '{i}t is
an unfair practice for any employer . . . {t}o discriminate against any
person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment
because of age, sex, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin,
or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability.' RCW
49.60.180(3) (emphasis added). This court has recognized that the
antidiscrimination statute prohibits sexual harassment in employment, with
such claims being 'generally categorized as 'quid pro quo harassment'
claims or 'hostile work environment' claims.' DeWater v. State, 130 Wn.2d
128, 134-35, 921 P.2d 1059 (1996) (quoting Payne v. Children's Home Soc'y
of Wash., Inc., 77 Wn. App. 507, 511 n.2, 892 P.2d 1102, review denied, 127
Wn.2d 1012 (1995)). Whether the antidiscrimination statute supports a
disability based hostile work environment claim is an issue of first
impression in this state. In reviewing Robel's claim below, Division Three
of the Court of Appeals assumed arguendo that the antidiscrimination
statute 'encompasse{d} a hostile environment claim based on a disability'
but concluded that the findings of fact did not support such a claim.
Robel, 103 Wn. App. at 86-87. We hold that the antidiscrimination statute
supports a disability based hostile work environment claim, and conclude
that the trial court's unchallenged findings of fact satisfied each element
of the claim.
To determine whether the antidiscrimination statute supports a disability
claim based on a hostile work environment, we may look to federal cases
construing analogous federal statutes. Fahn v. Cowlitz County, 93 Wn.2d
368, 376, 610 P.2d 857, 621 P.2d 1293 (1980). A number of federal courts
have considered whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the
ADA, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12101) supports a disability claim based on the
employer's creation of a hostile work environment.2 The ADA forbids
discrimination that impacts a disabled person's 'terms, conditions, and
privileges of employment,' a phrase likewise found in Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on an employee's race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. sec. 12112(a), sec.
2000e-2(a)(1). The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the
language in Title VII to prohibit harassment that is so
'severe and pervasive' as to alter the conditions of employment and create
a hostile work environment. Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57,
67, 106 S. Ct. 2399, 91 L. Ed. 2d 49 (1986). When asked to extend to ADA
plaintiffs this same protection afforded under Title VII, most federal
courts have recognized a hostile work environment claim under the ADA and
have applied the Title VII standards to those claims.3
The antidiscrimination statute, which applies with equal force to sex based
and disability based employment discrimination, is analogous to Title VII
and the ADA. Setting forth the elements that a plaintiff must prove '{t}o
establish a work environment sexual harassment case' under the
antidiscrimination statute, this court noted that, although federal cases
interpreting Title VII were 'not binding on this court,' they were
'instructive' and 'support{ive}.' Glasgow v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 103 Wn.2d
401, 406 & n.2, 693 P.2d 708 (1985). In Glasgow, we determined that a
sexual harassment plaintiff must prove (1) that '{t}he harassment was
unwelcome,' (2) that it 'was because of sex,' (3) that it 'affected the
terms or conditions of employment,' and (4) that it was 'imputed to the
employer.' Id. at 406-07; see also Fisher v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 53
Wn. App. 591, 769 P.2d 318 (applying Glasgow factors to race based
discrimination), review denied, 112 Wn.2d 1027
(1989). Just as the federal cases extended the Title VII hostile work
environment claim (and its standards of proof) to the ADA, we may extend
the reasoning in Glasgow to disability claims and conclude that, under the
antidiscrimination statute, a plaintiff in a disability based hostile work
environment case must prove (1) that he or she was disabled within the
meaning of the antidiscrimination statute, (2) that the harassment was
unwelcome, (3) that it was because of the disability, (4) that it affected
the terms or conditions of employment, and (5) that it was imputable to the
employer. The finder of fact must determine whether the plaintiff has met
his or her burden as to each of these elements. See 6A Washington Pattern
Jury Instructions: Civil 330.23, at 240 (1997) (WPI).
The question thus before us is whether the trial court's findings of fact
establish all five elements of Robel's disability based hostile work
environment claim. The only applicable findings are those pertaining to
employee conduct occurring after Robel's workplace injury on July 14, 1996.
The first element, that Robel's injury was a disability under RCW
49.60.180(3), was not contested. To satisfy the second element, proof that
the conduct was 'unwelcome,' the plaintiff must show that he or she 'did
not solicit or incite it' and viewed it as 'undesirable or offensive.'
Glasgow, 103 Wn.2d at 406; cf. 6A WPI 330.23, at 240 (requiring jury to
find that plaintiff proved '{t}hat this language or conduct was unwelcome
in the sense that the plaintiff regarded the conduct as undesirable and
offensive, and did not solicit or incite it'). This element is fully met in
the findings. No findings suggested that Robel solicited or incited the
remarks made about her workplace injury. That she viewed it as undesirable
and offensive was at least implicit in her reporting the conduct to Banka,
but the trial court explicitly found that '{t}he harassment of Robel in the
work setting was unwelcomed' and 'offensive.' CP at 1335-36 (Findings of
Fact 41, 44).
The third element, that the harassment occurred 'because of' the workplace
injury, 'requires that the {disability} of the plaintiff-employee be the
motivating factor for the unlawful discrimination.' Glasgow, 103 Wn.2d at
406. This element thus requires a nexus between the specific harassing
conduct and the particular injury or disability. Satisfying the element
that the conduct 'occurred because of {the plaintiff's disability},' the
trial court found that '{t}he verbal and non-verbal harassment of Robel in
the work setting subsequent to July 14, 1996, was directly or proximately
related to her disability and/or Fred Meyer's perception of Robel as
disabled.' CP at 1334 (Finding of Fact 31) (emphasis added). For us to
conclude that this unchallenged finding failed to satisfy the third factor,
we would have to make the very fine-grained distinction that the finding's
description of the harassment as 'directly or proximately related to' the
disability did not mean that the harassment was 'because of' the
disability. We decline to split that hair. Because this clear factual
finding was not challenged on appeal, we are not at liberty to substitute
our judgment for that of the trial court.
Of the fourth element, whether the conduct affected the terms and
conditions of employment, the Glasgow court explained that '{t}he
harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of
employment and create an abusive working environment.' 103 Wn.2d at 406.
As indicated in the pattern jury instruction, based on RCW 49.60.180(3) and
Glasgow, a satisfactory finding on this element should indicate '{t}hat the
conduct or language complained of was so offensive or pervasive that it
could reasonably be expected to alter the conditions of plaintiff's
employment.' 6A WPI 330.23, at 240. The trial court found that 'Fred
Meyer created a hostile and abusive work environment' and that the
environment 'was offensive to Robel.' CP at 1335-36 (Findings of Fact 43-
44). Another finding states that 'Fred Meyer discriminated against Robel
in the terms or conditions of employment when it participated in and/or
failed to bring to an end . . . the verbal and non-verbal harassment of
Robel in the work setting.' CP at 1336 (Finding of Fact 48). Describing
the employer's conduct as 'offensive' enough to affect Robel's 'terms or
conditions of employment' and 'create{} a hostile and abusive work
environment,' these findings echo the critical language from Glasgow and
the pattern jury instruction. We cannot pretend that the trial court
failed to make the necessary findings on this element of the disability
based hostile work environment claim. Because no error was assigned to
these findings, we accept them as verities and forgo any reweighing of the
evidence supporting them.4
The fifth element, whether the postinjury conduct must be imputed to the
employer, was explained in Glasgow as follows:
Where an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally
participates in the harassment, this element is met by such proof. To hold
an employer responsible for the discriminatory work environment created by
a plaintiff's supervisor(s) or co-worker(s), the employee must show that
the employer (a) authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment
and (b) failed to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.
103 Wn.2d at 407. Applying this passage, the jury must find either that
(1) 'an owner, manager, partner or corporate officer personally
participate{d} in the harassment' or that (2) 'the employer . . .
authorized, knew, or should have known of the harassment and . . . failed
to take reasonably prompt and adequate corrective action.' Id. (emphasis
added); see also 6A WPI 330.23, at 240-41.
The trial court found that 'Fred Meyer, through the acts of its managers,
participated, authorized, knew and/or should have known of the verbal and
non-verbal harassment of Robel in the work setting subsequent to July 14,
1996.' CP at 1335
(Finding of Fact 38) (emphasis added); see also CP at 1336 (Finding of Fact
46) (stating that 'Fred Meyer's management personnel improperly
participated in and/or allowed the verbal and non-verbal harassment in the
work setting'). The trial court clarified in its oral review of the
findings that deli manager Potts and assistant deli manager Smith were
management personnel for purposes of employer liability.5 The court also
found that 'Fred Meyer's remedial action . . . was not of such a nature to
have been reasonably calculated to end the harassment' and that '{i}ts
investigations and termination of {one co-worker} without further
management corrections were inadequate.' CP at 1335 (Finding of Fact 40).
Moreover, the court specifically found that the postinjury harassment was
'imputed to Fred Meyer.' Id. (Finding of Fact 39) (emphasis added). These
uncontested findings of fact satisfy both options derived from Glasgow.
We therefore conclude that RCW 49.60.180(3) supports a disability based
hostile work environment claim and that the Court of Appeals erred when it
ignored the trial court's unchallenged findings of fact on the five
essential elements of the claim. We reverse the Court of Appeals and
reinstate the trial court's judgment in Robel's favor on this claim.
Retaliation for Filing Workers' Compensation Claim. Washington's
Industrial Insurance Act provides that '{n}o employer may discharge or in
any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has
filed or communicated to the employer an intent to file a claim for
compensation or exercises any rights provided under this title.' RCW
51.48.025(1) (emphasis added). Robel asserts that, although Fred Meyer did
not discharge her for filing her workers' compensation claim, the company
did 'in {some} manner discriminate against' her 'because' she filed her
workers' compensation claim. Id.; see City of Seattle v. Williams, 128
Wn.2d 341, 349, 908 P.2d 359 (1995) (courts 'are duty-bound to give meaning
to every word that the Legislature chose to include in a statute and to
avoid rendering any language superfluous'). The trial court made the
following unchallenged findings:
34. Fred Meyer has a policy that retaliation by supervisors against
employees is precluded when complaints are raised by employees. Fred Meyer
failed and/or refused to enforce this policy in response to the verbal and
non-verbal harassment of Robel in the work setting.
35. Fred Meyer's actions and/or inactions in regard to the verbal and non-
verbal harassment of Robel in the work setting subsequent to July 14, 1996,
was an unlawful act of retaliation in response to her filing and/or
pursuing an industrial insurance claim under RCW 51, et seq., a statutorily
protected activity.
36. The verbal and non-verbal harassment of Robel in the work setting
subsequent to July 14, 1996, constituted an unlawful and adverse employment
action against her.
37. There exists a direct causal connection between Robel's protected
activity and the adverse employment action.
CP at 1334-35 (Findings of Fact 34-37) (emphasis added).
Without commenting on these unchallenged findings, which respond directly
to the antidiscrimination statute, the Court of Appeals determined that
Robel would have to provide ''either (a) proof of a policy or practice of
the employer, known to the employee, by which the employer retaliates
against employees who exercise their rights under the workers' compensation
law; or (b) {proof} that the employee sustains an on-the-job injury, and is
directly threatened with retaliation if the employee claims benefits under
the workers' compensation law for the injury.'' Robel, 103 Wn. App. at 88
(quoting Johnson v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 67 Wn. App. 10, 13, 833 P.2d 388
(1992)).
The reliance on Johnson is insupportable. At issue there was the
employer's conduct in preventing an employee from filing a claim, a
circumstance not presented here. In fact, no prior cases have applied the
antidiscrimination statute to the present situation--that of an employer
who has allegedly discriminated in some way, short of discharge, against an
employee because she filed a workers' compensation claim. By analogy with
Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46, 68, 821 P.2d 18
(1991), which required proof of a causal connection between the filing of a
claim and the allegedly retaliatory termination, Robel was required to
prove that she had filed a claim, that Fred Meyer thereafter discriminated
against her in some way,6 and that the claim and the discrimination were
causally connected. Because the findings of fact satisfy these elements
and were not challenged on appeal, we reverse the Court of Appeals on the
retaliation claim and reinstate the trial court's judgment in Robel's
favor.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Robel's complaint stated
causes of action for both negligent and intentional emotional distress,
basing those claims on the same averments. In the trial court's oral
review of its findings, it stated that, '{w}ith regard to the negligence
and intentional infliction claim, {it} would recognize {that the} conduct
rises to the level of being intentional, particularly as it relates to
management of {sic} employee Smith and conduct that took place in the
direct presence of management employee Potts.' Report of Proceedings (RP)
at 553. The trial court entered judgment in Robel's favor on both claims,
but the Court of Appeals reversed.
To prevail on a claim for outrage, a plaintiff must prove three elements:
'(1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless infliction
of emotional distress, and (3) severe emotional distress on the part of the
plaintiff.'7 The first element requires proof that the conduct was ''so
outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all
possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly
intolerable in a civilized community.'' Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612,
630, 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) (quoting Grimsby v. Samson, 85 Wn.2d 52, 59, 530
P.2d 291 (1975)). Although the three elements are fact questions for the
jury, this first element of the test goes to the jury only after the court
'determine{s} if reasonable minds could differ on whether the conduct was
sufficiently extreme to result in liability.' Id. Here, the trial court
entered factual findings in Robel's favor on the three elements, CP at 1336-
37 (Findings of Fact 51, 52, 57, 59, 60), but the Court of Appeals
reversed, determining as a matter of law that 'reasonable minds could not
differ on whether the conduct was so extreme as to result in liability.'
Robel, 103 Wn. App. at 90.
While the standard for an outrage claim is admittedly very high (by which
we mean that the conduct supporting the claim must be appallingly low), we
disagree with the Court of Appeals on the threshold legal question and
conclude that reasonable persons could deem the employer's conduct, as set
forth in the unchallenged findings, sufficiently outrageous to trigger
liability. In some contexts, perhaps the language directed at Robel could
be dismissed as merely 'rough' and 'insulting,' as the Court of Appeals
characterized it, Robel, 103 Wn. App. at 90, but we believe that reasonable
minds (such as the one exercised by the trial judge) could conclude that,
in light of the severity and context of the conduct, it was 'beyond all
possible bounds of decency, . . . atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a
civilized community.' Dicomes, 113 Wn.2d at 630 (quoting Grimsby, 85 Wn.2d
at 59). This court has recognized that in an outrage claim '{t}he
relationship between the parties is a significant factor in determining
whether liability should be imposed.' Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach Corp.,
88 Wn.2d 735, 741, 565 P.2d 1173 (1977). The Contreras court emphasized
that 'added impetus' is given to an outrage claim '{w}hen one in a position
of authority, actual or apparent, over another has allegedly made racial
slurs and jokes and comments.' Id.; see also White v. Monsanto Co., 585
So. 2d 1205, 1210 (La. 1991) (stating that 'plaintiff's status as an
employee may entitle him to a greater degree of protection from insult and
outrage by a supervisor with authority over him than if he were a
stranger'). Robel was called in her workplace names so vulgar that they
have acquired nicknames, such as 'the C word,' for example. Joint Ex. 201,
at 40; cf. Taylor v. Metzger, 152 N.J. 490, 706 A.2d 685, 695-96 (1998)
(holding that, in light of 'power dynamics of the workplace,' jury could
reasonably find 'extreme and outrageous' a sheriff's utterance of a single
racial slur about subordinate officer). Thus, on the threshold question of
law, we conclude that reasonable minds could differ on whether the conduct
was sufficiently extreme to warrant the imposition of liability on the
employer. The claim was properly before the finder of fact, and the trial
court's unchallenged factual findings on the elements of intentional
infliction of emotional distress are verities on appeal.
Fred Meyer argued to the Court of Appeals that, '{i}n Washington, an
employer is generally not, as a matter of law, liable for an intentional
tort committed by an employee.' Opening Br. of Appellant at 33 (citing
Kuehn v. White, 24 Wn. App. 274, 278, 600 P.2d 679 (1979)). This point of
view gravely distorts the law of vicarious liability in this state. Our
case law makes clear that, once an employee's underlying tort is
established, the employer will be held vicariously liable if 'the employee
was acting within the scope of his employment.' Dickinson v. Edwards, 105
Wn.2d 457, 469, 716 P.2d 814 (1986). An employer can defeat a claim of
vicarious liability by showing that the employee's conduct was (1)
'intentional or criminal' and (2) 'outside the scope of employment.' Niece
v. Elmview Group Home, 131 Wn.2d 39, 56, 929 P.2d 420 (1997) (emphasis
added), quoted with approval in Snyder v. Med. Servs. Corp. of E. Wash.,
145 Wn.2d 233, 242-43, 35 P.3d 1158 (2001). Niece and, by extension,
Snyder simply do not stand for the proposition that intentional or criminal
conduct is per se outside the scope of employment.8
An employee's conduct will be outside the scope of employment if it 'is
different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or
space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master.'
Restatement (Second) of Agency sec. 228(2) (1958); see also Restatement,
supra, sec. 228(1). This is not to say that an employer will be
vicariously liable only where it has specifically authorized an employee to
act in an intentionally harmful or negligent manner; likewise, an employer
may not insulate itself from vicarious liability merely by adopting a
general policy proscribing bad behavior that would otherwise be actionable.
The proper inquiry is whether the employee was fulfilling his or her job
functions at the time he or she engaged in the injurious conduct. For
example, in Kuehn, the employee, a truck driver, stepped outside the scope
of his employment when, following an exchange of obscene gestures, he ran
the plaintiff's car off the road and, after both vehicles had stopped,
assaulted the plaintiff with a pipe. The Kuehn court observed that, when a
servant 'steps aside from the master's business in order to effect some
purpose of his own, the master is not liable.' 24 Wn. App. at 277.
Similarly, this court has also determined that, where an employee's acts
are directed toward personal sexual gratification, the employee's conduct
falls outside the scope of his or her employment. For example, in Thompson
v. Everett Clinic, 71 Wn. App. 548, 860 P.2d 1054 (1993), the court held
that the actions of a doctor who, for his own personal sexual
gratification, had manually obtained sperm samples from his male patients
during examination were not within the scope of the doctor's employment.9
Here, Fred Meyer was vicariously liable for the offending conduct of its
deli employees. First, unlike the employee in Kuehn, who left his post and
effectively ceased to be an employee, the Fred Meyer deli workers tormented
Robel on company property during working hours, as they interacted with co-
workers and customers and performed the duties they were hired to perform.
Nothing in the record suggests that the abusive employees left their job
stations or neglected their assigned duties to launch the verbal attacks on
Robel. Nor was the employees' conduct in this case directed toward
deriving personal sexual gratification, an exceptional circumstance that
could have taken the conduct outside the scope of their employment.
In sum, we conclude that Fred Meyer is vicariously liable, that reasonable
minds could find the complained-of conduct outrageous, and that the
uncontested findings satisfied the three elements of outrage.
Consequently, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial
court's judgment for Robel on her claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Robel's success on this claim makes unnecessary our
consideration of Robel's companion claim for negligent infliction of
emotional distress.
Defamation. A plaintiff bringing a defamation action must prove 'four
essential elements: falsity, an unprivileged communication, fault, and
damages.' Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wn.2d 473, 486, 635 P.2d 1081 (1981),
cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124 (1982). Before the truth or falsity of an
allegedly defamatory statement can be assessed, a plaintiff must prove that
the words constituted a statement of fact, not an opinion. Because
'expressions of opinion are protected under the First Amendment,' they 'are
not actionable.' Camer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 45 Wn. App. 29, 39,
723 P.2d 1195 (1986) (citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323,
339, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974) (observing that '{u}nder the
First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea')). Whether the
allegedly defamatory words were intended as a statement of fact or an
expression of opinion is a threshold question of law for the court. Id.
The trial court found that '{t}he defamatory communications by Fred Meyer's
employees included that Robel was a 'bitch,' a 'cunt,' a 'fucking bitch,' a
'fucking cunt,' a 'snitch,' a 'squealer,' and/or a 'liar,' and the comment
that 'only idiots demo.'' CP at 1337 (Finding of Fact 63). The Court of
Appeals reasonably rejected as nonactionable opinions the vulgar names
Robel's co-workers called her. Robel, 103 Wn. App. at 92 (noting that
'some statements . . . cannot reasonably be understood to be meant
literally and seriously and are obviously mere vituperation and abuse'
(quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 566, cmt. e (1977))). The
Court of Appeals concluded that the remaining words--'snitch,' 'squealer,'
'liar,' and 'idiot'--were arguably defamatory statements of fact but that
Robel's claim failed because the trial court had made no finding of damages
arising from the defamation claim.
We conclude, however, that none of the allegedly defamatory words could
carry defamatory meaning in this case. The vulgarisms, along with the word
'idiot,' were plainly abusive words not intended to be taken literally as
statements of fact. To determine whether the words 'snitch,' 'squealer,'
and 'liar' should likewise be viewed as nonactionable opinions, we consider
the 'totality of the circumstances' surrounding those statements: 'To
determine whether a statement is nonactionable, a court should consider at
least (1) the medium and context in which the statement was published, (2)
the audience to whom it was published, and (3) whether the statement
implies undisclosed facts.' Dunlap v. Wayne, 105 Wn.2d 529, 539, 716 P.2d
842 (1986) (regarding as a nonactionable opinion, not a statement of fact,
opposing counsel's statement to plaintiff's employer that plaintiff had
been soliciting a kickback).
Applying the Dunlap court's three-factor test and its reasoning, we hold as
a matter of law that, as with the vulgarisms and the word 'idiot,' the
words 'snitch,' 'squealer,' and 'liar' likewise constituted nonactionable
opinions. Regarding the first factor, medium and context, at issue here
were oral statements made in circumstances and places that invited
exaggeration and personal opinion. Those engaging in the name-calling were
Robel's co-workers and superiors--individuals who were potentially
interested in discrediting her complaints to management about questionable
food handling practices in the deli or who were personally interested in
ostracizing Robel in the workplace.
The second Dunlap factor, the audience, likewise suggests that the remarks
are to be regarded as nonactionable opinions. According to the trial
court's finding, '{t}he defamatory communications were published to Fred
Meyer's customers and/or Robel's co-workers and/or Robel's management
personnel.'10 As an audience, Robel's co-workers and managers were
certainly 'prepared for mischaracterization and exaggeration.' Dunlap, 105
Wn.2d at 541. They would have been aware of the animosity between Robel
and other co-workers. Such words as 'snitch,' 'squealer,' and 'liar' would
have registered, if at all, as expressions of personal opinion, not as
statements of fact. Likewise, customers hearing the comments would
reasonably perceive that the speaker was an antagonistic or resentful co-
worker.
Analysis of the third factor, whether the words implied undisclosed
defamatory facts, yields the same result--an unsurprising result since the
context and audience often ensure that any implicit facts will be perceived
as 'merely a characterization of
those facts.' Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970, 985 (D.C. Cir. 1984). To the
extent the words were published to deli workers, that audience would have
known the facts ostensibly underlying the epithets 'snitch,' 'squealer,'
and 'liar'--that Robel had been recording in her journal what she believed
were questionable practices in the deli and that she had voiced her
complaints to management. Likewise, the remark made to customers--that
Robel was ''demoing' pizzas' because she had 'lied about her back'--implies
no undisclosed defamatory facts; rather, the remark overtly explains why
the resentful, unprofessional co-worker regarded Robel as a 'liar.' CP at
1333 (Finding of Fact 23).
Because we conclude that all of the utterances identified in the finding
were nonactionable opinions, we affirm the reversal of the trial court's
judgment on Robel's defamation claim.
Robel's Request for Attorney Fees on Appeal. In a supplemental brief filed
with this court, Robel requested costs and a reasonable attorney fee.
Because no fee request was made in her petition for review, the issue was
not properly raised before this court. See RAP 13.7(b). We also note that
Robel based the fee request made in the supplemental brief on RCW
51.52.130, a statute that she did not cite below as a basis for a fee
award. While RAP 12.1(b) gives this court the latitude to consider an
issue not properly raised, the rule pertains to issues that, in our view,
'should be considered to properly decide a case.' Because Robel's fee
request is not such an issue, we deny the request.
CONCLUSION
On Robel's claims of disability discrimination, retaliation for filing a
workers' compensation claim, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's
judgment in Robel's favor. We affirm the reversal of the trial court's
judgment for Robel on her defamation claim and deny Robel's request for
attorney fees on appeal.
The Court of Appeals decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
WE CONCUR:
1 Finding of Fact 28 (CP at 1333) does not indicate the date on which Robel
contacted Banka, nor does Robel's journal mention the contact.
2 The Court of Appeals cited seven cases wherein federal district courts
held that the ADA encompassed hostile work environment claims. Robel, 103
Wn. App. at 86. Six of those cases are among the twenty-one collected in
Brian L. Porto, Annotation, Actions Under Americans with Disabilities Act
(42 U.S.C.A. sec.sec. 12101 et seq.), to Remedy Alleged Harassment or
Hostile Work Environment, 162 A.L.R. Fed. 603, 612-24 (2000). Of the
twenty-one cases Porto summarizes, he categorizes only three as denying
recognition of hostile work environment disability claims. See also Fox v.
Gen. Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2001); Flowers v. S. Reg'l
Physician Servs., Inc., 247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001) (claims for hostile
work environment cognizable under the ADA).
3 See supra note 2.
4 Apparently misconstruing the relevant findings of fact as conclusions of
law, the Court of Appeals embarked on its own analysis of this fourth
factor and concluded that the findings of fact did not establish that the
disability based harassment was sufficiently pervasive, severe, and
persistent to affect the terms and conditions of Robel's employment.
Robel, 103 Wn. App. at 86-87.
5 In re Marriage of Booth, 114 Wn.2d 772, 777, 791 P.2d 519 (1990) (in
absence of written finding, appellate court may look to oral opinion).
Managers are those who have been given by the employer the authority and
power to affect the hours, wages, and working conditions of the employer's
workers. The trial court referred to Smith as 'a management representative
of Fred Meyer' and likewise referred to deli manager Evelyn Potts as
'management employee Potts.' Report of Proceedings (RP) at 550, 551, 553.
Smith, as 'assistant deli manager,' made the work assignments in the deli
and joined Potts in interviewing Robel for transition into a 40-hour
position. CP at 1330 (Finding of Fact 6); RP at 179; Joint Ex. 201, at 20.
Fred Meyer failed to assign error to the trial court's findings that
management-level employees participated in the harassment.
6 The unchallenged findings of fact refer to '{t}he verbal and non-verbal
harassment of Robel in the work setting subsequent to July 14, 1996,' as
well as 'Fred Meyer's actions and/or inactions in regard to {such}
harassment.' CP at 1334-35 (Findings of Fact 35-36). Although we are not
called upon to weigh the sufficiency of the evidence supporting these
unchallenged findings, we do note that the record shows incidents spanning
the period August 1, 1996, through September 13, 1996. See supra at pages
2-4.
7 Reid v. Pierce County, 136 Wn.2d 195, 202, 961 P.2d 333 (1998) (citing
Dicomes, 113 Wn.2d at 630; Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 46 (1965)).
Robel's complaint alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress;
outrage encompasses causes of action based on reckless and intentional
conduct.
8 In Niece, this court took pains to say that there may be other bases of
employer liability for the criminal conduct of employees quite apart from
vicarious liability:
Even where an employee is acting outside the scope of employment, the
relationship between employer and employee gives rise to a limited duty,
owed by an employer to foreseeable victims, to prevent the tasks, premises,
or instrumentalities entrusted to an employee from endangering others.
This duty gives rise to causes of action for negligent hiring, retention
and supervision. Liability under these theories is analytically distinct
and separate from vicarious liability. These causes of action are based on
the theory that 'such negligence on the part of the employer is a wrong to
{the injured party}, entirely independent of the liability of the employer
under the doctrine of respondeat superior.' Scott v. Blanchet High Sch.,
50 Wn. App. 37, 43, 747 P.2d 1124 (1987) (quoting 53 Am. Jur. 2d Master and
Servant sec. 422 (1970)), review denied, 110 Wn.2d 1016 (1988).
Niece, 131 Wn.2d at 48 (alteration in original).
9 Indeed, prior to Snyder, Washington case law regarding intentional torts
and vicarious liability was mostly confined to sexual misconduct;
naturally, the courts have held that the sexual acts of employees are not
within the scope of employment. See C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop of
Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 699, 985 P.2d 262 (1999) (holding that diocese could not
be held vicariously liable for sexual abuse by priests); Niece, 131 Wn.2d
39 (holding that group home was not vicariously liable for the rape of a
disabled resident by an employee); Blenheim v. Dawson & Hall, Ltd., 35 Wn.
App. 435, 667 P.2d 125 (1983) (holding that employer could not be held
vicariously liable where employees acted for their own purposes by
assaulting and raping a dancer at a company Christmas party).
10 CP at 1338 (Finding of Fact 64). The use of 'and/or' in this finding,
taken literally, would mean that the audience could have been any one of
the three or all three--customers, co-workers, managers. Because a
previous finding provides that unnamed deli workers 'told customers {Robel}
had lied about her back and was being punished by Fred Meyer by 'demoing'
pizzas,' we can conclude that the audience included unidentified
'customers.' CP at 1333 (Finding of Fact 23).
70561-5
BRIDGE, J. (dissenting in part)--The incidence of harassment and
discrimination in the workplace is terrifying and real. Its occurrence is
remedial at law. The remedy, however, must be applied against those truly
culpable for the injury caused. Our case law precedent is clear that an
employer is not responsible for resolving issues between employees in
conflict--no matter how hurtful to the putative victim of the conflict. An
employer becomes liable when he or she participates through an identifiable
agent or takes no action in the face of repeated harassment which is
attributable to a protected classification, and which is committed in the
furtherance of the perpetrator's employment. If these conditions are not
present, the culprit at law must be the offending employee, 'deep-pocket'
considerations aside. Empathy for those for whom going to work becomes a
nightmare is insufficient to hold otherwise noncomplicit employers liable
for the harm done by rogue employees. With these considerations in mind, I
turn to the case at bar.
Linda Robel began work at Fred Meyer1 in the deli department in December
1995. The following month, Robel and co-worker Tiffany Ware had a falling
out over Ware's relationship with Robel's son. Unfortunately for Robel,
Ware was a close friend of the deli's assistant manager, Amy Smith. The
unhappy result of this situation was that the mutual animosity between
Robel and Ware inevitably spilled over into the workplace, subjecting Robel
to various verbal taunts and tricks by her co-workers. Robel was
distressed by her co-workers' abusive behavior, but that behavior was
clearly the result of a personality conflict, not action by or on behalf of
her employers. Nor, as Robel claims, was the behavior caused by her back
injury or her filing a workers' compensation claim--in fact, much of the
offensive behavior predated both of these events. This clash, no matter
how distasteful, is insufficient to support a claim for outrage or
negligent infliction of emotional distress against Robel's employer. In
fact, once the responsible agent of her employer became aware of the
situation, action was taken. Ultimately, Robel's 'harasser' was fired.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority's holdings as to
disability discrimination, retaliation, and outrage. I concur with the
majority's holding that a defamation claim is not actionable on these
facts.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The majority asserts that because Fred Meyer has failed to challenge the
trial court's findings of fact, we must accept them as verities on appeal.
State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 697, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997). However, a
conclusion of law is a conclusion of law wherever it appears, even if it is
erroneously labeled a finding of fact. Kane v. Klos, 50 Wn.2d 778, 788,
314 P.2d 672 (1957); Local Union 1296, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City
of Kennewick, 86 Wn.2d 156, 161-62, 542 P.2d 1252 (1975). Conclusions of
law are reviewed de novo. State v. Johnson, 128 Wn.2d 431, 443, 909 P.2d
293 (1996). Furthermore, mixed questions of law and fact are subject to
review despite a party's failure to assign error to the finding. State v.
Niedergang, 43 Wn. App. 656, 660-61, 719 P.2d 576 (1986).
We have stated that a '''finding of fact is the assertion that a phenomenon
has happened or is or will be happening independent of or anterior to any
assertion as to its legal effect.''' Leschi v. Highway Comm'n, 84 Wn.2d
271, 283, 525 P.2d 774, 804 P.2d 1 (1974) (quoting NLRB v. Marcus Trucking
Co., 286 F.2d 583, 590-91 (2d Cir. 1961) (quoting Louis L. Jaffee, Judicial
Review: Question of Law, 69 Harv. L. Rev. 239, 241 (1955))). See also
State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215, 221, 634 P.2d 868 (1981) ('Where findings
necessarily imply one conclusion of law the question still remains whether
the evidence justified that conclusion.') (citing Cline v. Altose, 158
Wash. 119, 126, 290 P. 809 (1930)). In contrast, a conclusion of law is a
'determination {that} is made by a process of legal reasoning from facts in
evidence.' Niedergang, 43 Wn. App. at 658-59.
This court has had several opportunities to evaluate whether findings of
fact were in actuality, conclusions of law. In Ridgeview Properties v.
Starbuck, 96 Wn.2d 716, 719, 638 P.2d 1231 (1982), we held that a trial
court's finding of fact that '{a} dual agency relationship was not
established at any time during {the} transaction' was actually a conclusion
of law. In Woodruff v. McClellan, 95 Wn.2d 394, 396, 622 P.2d 1268 (1980),
we held that a trial court's finding of fact that defendants properly
rescinded the earnest money agreement was actually a conclusion of law
because the term 'rescission' carried a legal implication. See also Cline,
158 Wash. at 126 (in landlord-tenant action, finding of fact that actions
of parties adequately established respondent's right to a damage award was
actually a conclusion of law because it necessarily implied that there was
a constructive eviction); Niedergang, 43 Wn. App. at 660 (holding that
trial court's finding of fact that defendant's automobile was parked
outside curtilage of his house was at least mixed question of law and fact
because 'curtilage' could only be determined by examining facts of case);
Moulden & Sons, Inc. v. Osaka Landscaping & Nursery, Inc., 21 Wn. App. 194,
197, 584 P.2d 968 (1978) (holding trial court's finding of fact that
plaintiff had cured the breach was actually a conclusion of law).
Applying the above definitions, I agree with Fred Meyer that many of the
trial court's findings of fact are truly conclusions of law and are as such
subject to review. I will address the erroneously labeled findings as they
are relevant.
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Although I agree with the majority that Washington's antidiscrimination
statute supports a disability based hostile work environment claim, I
disagree that the findings of fact in this case support such a claim.
Adopting the framework established in Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 103
Wn.2d 401, 406-07, 693 P.2d 708 (1985), the majority holds that a
'plaintiff in a disability based hostile work environment case must prove
(1) that he or she was disabled within the meaning of the
antidiscrimination statute, (2) that the harassment was unwelcome, (3) that
it was because of the disability, (4) that it affected the terms or
conditions of employment, and (5) that it was imputable to the employer.'
Majority at 9.
The uncontested findings of fact do not support the majority's conclusion
that Robel was harassed because of her disability. The trial court found
that '{t}he verbal and non-verbal harassment of Robel in the work setting
subsequent to July 14, 1996, was directly or proximately related to her
disability and/or Fred Meyer's perception of Robel as disabled.'2 The
majority, however, was unwilling to draw a distinction between 'directly or
proximately related to' and 'because of' the disability. Majority at 10.
Under current Washington law, this distinction must be made.
In Glasgow, this court indicated that to satisfy the 'because of' prong,
the prohibited classification must be the 'motivating factor for the
unlawful discrimination.' 103 Wn.2d at 406 (emphasis added). In the
context of disability harassment, the question the court must ask is
whether 'the employee would have been singled out and caused to suffer the
harassment if the employee had' not been disabled? Id. In Robel's case,
the answer is clearly yes.
Because the trial court's findings of fact were not challenged, we must
accept its finding that the harassment after Robel's injury was 'directly
or proximately related to her disability.'3 However, this finding alone is
insufficient to support the conclusion that the harassment was 'because of'
Robel's disability. The harassment suffered by Robel began long before she
became disabled. As early as January 1996, Robel began to experience
hostility from her co-workers. This hostility continued and worsened in
the months that followed, and included a particularly nasty confrontation
with Tiffany Ware. At that time, Robel was not disabled. After Robel
suffered a lower back injury, requiring that she work only a light duty
shift, only one incident referenced Robel's disability. These facts
clearly indicate that Robel would have been harassed even if she had
remained able-bodied. Given the ongoing pattern of harassment and its
genesis in significant personality differences, had Robel not suffered her
back injury, it is unfortunate but likely that the adverse treatment would
have endured in another form.
In Doe v. Department of Transportation, 85 Wn. App. 143, 149, 931 P.2d 196
(1997), the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had failed to
establish that his supervisor's comments, although sexual in nature, were
motivated by the plaintiff's gender. The court found that the supervisor
had instead singled out people 'who appeared to be particularly offended by
his conduct regardless of the victims' sex.' Id.
In evaluating hostile work environment claims under the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12101, several circuit courts
have similarly held that isolated incidents of harassment were not
motivated by plaintiffs' disabilities even though at least some of the
harassing conduct may have been related to the plaintiffs' disabilities.
See Wallin v. Minn. Dep't of Corr., 153 F.3d 681, 688 (8th Cir. 1998)
(holding that plaintiff failed to establish that harassment was due to his
disabilities even though three incidents were related to his disability);
Cannice v. Norwest Bank Iowa N.A., 189 F.3d 723, 725-26 (8th Cir. 1999)
(holding that plaintiff failed to establish that alleged harassment was
'because of' his disability even though two isolated incidents may have
been connected to his mental condition; '{i}nsensitivity alone does not
amount to harassment').
Where federal courts have upheld disability discrimination claims based on
a hostile work environment, the harassment did not begin until after the
employee suffered the disability or the employer became aware of it. See,
e.g., Fox v. Gen. Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169, 172-73 (4th Cir. 2001)
(plaintiff, who had worked for defendant for many years, did not suffer
harassment until after he received light work load due to his back injury);
Flowers v. S. Reg'l Physician Servs. Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 236 (5th Cir.
2001) (finding that plaintiff and her supervisor had been good friends
prior to supervisor's discovery that plaintiff was HIV (human
immunodeficiency virus) positive and that harassing treatment of plaintiff
did not begin until thereafter). Plainly, such was not the case for Robel.
Therefore, I would hold that Robel failed to establish that she was
harassed because of her disability, an essential element of her disability
discrimination claim.4
OUTRAGE
The tort of outrage requires the plaintiff to show: (1) extreme or
outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) that the conduct was intentional
or reckless; and (3) that the plaintiff actually suffered severe emotional
distress as a result. Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612, 630, 782 P.2d 1002
(1989) (citing Rice v. Janovich, 109 Wn.2d 48, 61, 742 P.2d 1230 (1987)).
The conduct at issue must be ''so outrageous in character, and so extreme
in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be
regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.''
Id. at 630 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Grimsby v. Samson, 85 Wn.2d 52, 59,
530 P.2d 291 (1975)).
Although whether the defendant's conduct is sufficiently outrageous is a
question of fact for the jury, before a claim of outrage can go to the
jury, the court must first determine 'if reasonable minds could differ on
whether the conduct was sufficiently extreme to result in liability.' Id.
at 630. In deciding this threshold question, the majority reversed the
Court of Appeals concluding that on these facts 'reasonable persons could
deem the employer's conduct . . . sufficiently outrageous to trigger
liability.' Majority at 18. The majority applied this standard to the
wrong set of facts, relying on the conduct of Robel's co-workers. However,
Robel's action is against Fred Meyer, not her co-workers. Thus, the
correct inquiry is whether Fred Meyer's conduct in responding to the co-
workers' behavior was 'sufficiently extreme {as} to result in liability?'
I believe that it was not.
First, when the findings of fact are taken as a whole, Fred Meyer's direct
action and/or inaction was not sufficient to result in liability. Although
the trial court found that 'Fred Meyer through its action and/or inaction
allowed and/or fostered the verbal and non-verbal harassment in the work
setting,'5 it also found that when Robel chose to complain about the
harassment or other problems in her department, Fred Meyer generally
responded to her concerns. For example, when Robel first complained about
the food handling problems in the deli to the store's director, Steve
Wissink, Wissink undertook an investigation and found that the problems
were insubstantial. Similarly, when Tiffany Ware was awarded a 40-hour
position in the deli, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union
successfully challenged the action on behalf of Robel. After her injury,
Robel, through her union representative again reported incidents of
harassment to Wissink, who then met with the deli employees and informed
them that harassment would not be tolerated. When Wissink was informed
that the harassment had continued, he conducted another investigation and
eventually fired Ware.
Fred Meyer's responses certainly were not ''so outrageous in character, and
so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and
to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community.'' Dicomes, 113 Wn.2d at 630 (emphasis omitted) (quoting
Grimsby, 85 Wn.2d at 59). Fred Meyer's actions were in no way as severe as
those of Robel's co-workers, which the majority admitted was a 'close call'
in terms of creating the requisite level of outrageousness. Majority at
18.
It is not for this court to second guess what actions should have been
taken. In examining the applicability of the tort of negligent infliction
of emotional distress in the workplace, we have observed that ''employers,
not the courts, are in the best position to determine whether such disputes
should be resolved by employee counseling, discipline, transfers,
terminations or no action at all.'' Snyder v. Med. Serv. Corp., 145 Wn.2d
233, 245, 35 P.3d 1158 (2001) (emphasis added) (quoting Bishop v. State, 77
Wn. App. 228, 234, 889 P.2d 959 (1995)). There seems to be no reason why
the same latitude should not be given to employers in the context of the
tort of outrage.
Second, in answering the threshold question of whether Fred Meyer's conduct
was 'sufficiently extreme' as to result in liability, Robel's co-workers'
actions should not be imputed to Fred Meyer. Although the trial court
found that '{t}he verbal and non-verbal harassment of Robel in the work
setting is imputed to Fred Meyer and causally related to her emotional
distress,'6 this 'finding of fact' is actually a conclusion of law and thus
subject to review. Whether an action may be imputed to another party can
be determined only by applying the relevant facts to the law. Cf.
Niedergang, 43 Wn. App. at 658. Therefore, whether an act of an employee
may be imputed to an employer is ultimately a question of whether the
employer may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employees
acting outside the scope of their employment. We have already answered
this question in the negative. Snyder, 145 Wn.2d at 242. See also Niece
v. Elmview Group Home, 79 Wn. App. 660, 664, 904 P.2d 784 (1995) ('When an
employee's intentionally tortious or criminal acts are not in furtherance
of the employer's business, the employer is not liable as a matter of law .
. . .' (emphasis added)), aff'd, 131 Wn.2d 39, 929 P.2d 420 (1997).
In Niece, we held that 'current Washington law clearly rejects vicarious
liability for intentional or criminal conduct outside the scope of
employment.' 131 Wn.2d at 56. Again, in Snyder, we stated that ''{w}hen
an employee's intentionally tortious or criminal acts are not in
furtherance of the employer's business, the employer is not liable as a
matter of law, even if the employment situation provided the opportunity or
means for the employee's wrongful acts.'' 145 Wn.2d at 242 (emphasis
added) (quoting Niece, 79 Wn. App. at 664). See also McGrail v. Dep't of
Labor & Indus., 190 Wash. 272, 277, 67 P.2d 851 (1937) (under traditional
agency principles, principal may be liable for acts of its agents only if
agent was 'engaged in the performance of the duties required of him by his
contract of employment or by the specific direction of his employer, or, as
sometimes stated, whether he was engaged at the time in the furtherance of
the employer's interests') (emphasis added).
In Snyder, the plaintiff claimed outrage based solely on the acts of her
immediate supervisor, Hall. 145 Wn.2d at 242. Hall's behavior toward the
plaintiff and other employees was described as 'authoritarian,'
'belligerent,' and 'harassing-type supervisor' and was severe enough as to
cause some employees to quit. Id. at 236-37. Hall specifically threatened
Snyder7 and, on one occasion, 'poked' Snyder in the chest. Id. at 237.
Snyder and Hall's employer, Medical Service Corporation (MSC), did nothing
to stop Hall's offensive behavior even though MSC was aware of it. Id. at
236-37. Because MSC had a policy forbidding 'its supervisors to use
physical force or threats of physical force,' we concluded that Hall's
actions were outside the scope of her employment, and thus, MSC could not
be vicariously liable for Hall's actions. Id. at 243.
Here, the actions by Robel's co-workers8 were clearly outside the scope of
their employment. Like the employer in Snyder, Fred Meyer had a policy
forbidding 'harassment, threats, and intimidation involving one employee
versus another.'9 Furthermore, it did not direct its employees to harass
Robel.10 Although these comments and actions may have been offensive to
Robel, they were not 'in furtherance of' Fred Meyer's business. In fact,
unlike the actions by Hall in Snyder which tended to involve 'work-related
topics--pay and unpaid overtime work,' Snyder v. Medical Services Corp., 98
Wn. App. 315, 324, 988 P.2d 1023 (1999), the actions and comments by
Robel's co-workers were largely unrelated to the workplace.
Despite the majority's assertion, merely because an employee is 'on duty'
does not mean that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her
employment. See majority at 20-22. Washington courts have generally
required more than the fact that an employee was 'on duty' in order to hold
his or her employer vicariously liable for the employee's intentionally
tortious acts. 'When an employee's intentionally tortious or criminal acts
are not in furtherance of the employer's business, the employer is not
liable as a matter of law, even if the employment situation provided the
opportunity or means for the employee's wrongful acts.' Niece, 79 Wn. App.
at 664 (emphasis added). See also 16 David K. DeWolf & Keller W. Allen,
Washington Practice: Tort Law and Practice sec. 3.7, at 89 (2d ed. 2000)
('intentional torts of servants are not, generally as a matter of law,
considered within the scope of employment or in furtherance of a master's
business'); Hein v. Chrysler Corp., 45 Wn.2d 586, 600, 277 P.2d 708 (1954)
('An employee who willfully and for his own purposes violates the property
rights of another . . . is not acting in the furtherance of his employer's
business.').
Numerous Washington cases have refused to impose liability on an employer
for the intentional torts committed by their employees even though the
employee was 'on duty' at the time of the tort. See, e.g., Hein, 45 Wn.2d
at 598-600 (holding employer not vicariously liable for employees malicious
inducement of a breach of contract even though employees used employer's
business to induce breach because employees not acting within scope of
employment); Niece, 79 Wn. App. at 664 (group home employee not acting
within scope of employment when he sexually assaulted a patient); Kuehn v.
White, 24 Wn. App. 274, 277-79, 600 P.2d 679 (1979) (employer not liable
for employee truck driver who assaulted another motorist in a roadside
argument even though truck driver's employment technically created the
opportunity for the conflict). Under the majority's reasoning, an employer
would essentially be strictly liable for all intentionally tortious actions
committed by an employee who was 'on duty' regardless of whether the
actions were in furtherance of the employer's business. This position is
clearly not supported by Washington law. See Niece, 131 Wn.2d at 54-56
(rejecting nondelegable theory of employer liability for intentional acts
of its employers acting outside the scope of their employment).
Because we have declined to hold employers vicariously liable as a matter
of law in exactly this type of situation, Robel's co-workers' actions
cannot be imputed to Fred Meyer. The circumstances here are virtually
indistinguishable from our recent decision in Snyder except insofar as the
employee's actions in that case were arguably more egregious and the
employer's actions less responsive. Yet, there was no liability for the
employer in Snyder. The actions of Robel's co-workers may not be used to
determine that reasonable minds could differ as to whether Fred Meyer's
actions were sufficiently extreme as to warrant liability.
RETALIATION
Without justification, the majority extends the tort of wrongful discharge
recognized in Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219, 685 P.2d 1081
(1984) to encompass an act by an employer short of actual or constructive
discharge. The majority merely substitutes the word 'discrimination' for
'discharge.' However, the majority fails to define any limitation to the
tort or to provide any justification expanding the tort beyond acts of
discharge. I would continue to limit successful wrongful discharge claims
to those that can show actual or constructive discharge.
In Thompson, we emphasized that the wrongful discharge exception to the
employment at will doctrine was narrow and required balancing the interest
of the employer to be protected against frivolous lawsuits with the
interest of the employee to be protected against employer actions that
contravene a clear public policy. Id. at 223, 232-33. Wrongful discharge
claims have generally been allowed in four circumstances: ''(1) where
employees are fired for refusing to commit an illegal act; (2) where
employees are fired for performing a public duty or obligation, such as
serving jury duty; (3) where employees are fired for exercising a legal
right or privilege, such as filing workers' compensation claims; and (4)
where employees are fired in retaliation for reporting employer misconduct,
i.e., whistleblowing.'' Warnek v. ABB Combustion Eng'g Servs., Inc., 137
Wn.2d 450, 461, 972 P.2d 453 (1999) (emphasis added) (quoting Gardner v.
Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931, 936, 913 P.2d 377 (1996)).
Although RCW 51.48.025(1) states that '{no} employer may discharge or in
any manner discriminate against an employee because such employee has filed
or communicated to the employer any intent to file a claim for compensation
or exercises any rights provided under this title,' the statute does not
provide a direct cause of action for an aggrieved employee.11 It does,
however, provide the requisite public policy used by this court to
establish an action for wrongful discharge in Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corp., 118 Wn.2d 46, 821 P.2d 18 (1991). In Wilmot, we held that
a plaintiff could make out a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge by
showing '(1) that he or she exercised the statutory right to pursue
workers' benefits under RCW Title 51 or communicated to the employer an
intent to do so or exercised any other right under RCW Title 51; (2) that
he or she was discharged; and (3) that there is a causal connection between
the exercise of the legal right and the discharge.' Id. at 68. In
determining whether our common law tort of wrongful discharge is broad
enough to cover adverse employer actions less than actual discharge, we
must look at the purpose of the public policy issue, as well as the tort
itself.
In White v. State, 131 Wn.2d 1, 18, 929 P.2d 396 (1997), we addressed for
the first time whether an adverse employer action less than actual
discharge is actionable where the action violates a clear mandate of public
policy. There, we were asked to adopt a cause of action for wrongful
transfer in violation of public policy where the transfer did not result in
a loss of pay, rank, job classification, or benefits. Id. at 7, 18. In
declining to adopt such an action, we stated that recognizing a cause of
action for employer actions short of actual discharge would open 'a
floodgate to frivolous litigation and substantially interfer{e} with an
employer's discretion to make personnel decisions.' Id. at 19 (citing
White v. State, 78 Wn. App. 824, 839-40, 898 P.2d 331 (1995)).
In Warnek, we addressed the related issue of whether wrongful discharge
encompassed an action for wrongful refusal to rehire. 137 Wn.2d at 461-62.
The plaintiffs in Warnek alleged that the defendant had refused to rehire
them after they had been laid off because they had filed workers'
compensation claims in another state. Id. at 453. We held that prior
Washington case law did not provide a cause of action for a former employee
who had previously filed a workers' compensation grievance. Id. at 458.
We emphasized that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the requisite
element that they be 'fired' or 'discharged.' Id. at 461.
Other jurisdictions have been similarly reluctant to expand the tort of
wrongful discharge to include lesser disciplinary actions. See Ludwig v. C
& A Wallcoverings, Inc., 960 F.2d 40, 42-43 (7th Cir. 1992) (rejecting tort
of retaliatory demotion); Sanchez v. Philip Morris Inc., 992 F.2d 244, 249
(10th Cir. 1993) (refusing to adopt tort of wrongful failure to hire);
LaFriniere v. Group W Cable, Inc., 670 F. Supp 897, 898 (1987) (finding no
cause of action for wrongful demotion under Montana law); Zimmerman v.
Buchheit of Sparta, Inc., 164 Ill. 2d 29, 645 N.E.2d 877 (1994) (refusing
to extend tort of wrongful discharge to include demotions or discrimination
for employee pursuing workers' compensation claim); Mintz v. Bell Atl. Sys.
Leasing Int'l, Inc., 183 Ariz. 550, 553, 905 P.2d 559 (1995) (rejecting
tort of wrongful failure to promote in violation of public policy); Burris
v. City of Phoenix, 179 Ariz. 35, 43, 875 P.2d 1340 (1993) (rejecting new
tort of wrongful failure to hire); Williams v. Dub Ross Co., 895 P.2d 1344,
1347 (Okla. Ct. App. 1995) (refusing to expand public policy doctrine to
include wrongful failure to hire).12 In the few jurisdictions to extend the
wrongful discharge action, the plaintiffs all suffered actual adverse
employment actions. See Brigham v. Dillon Cos., 262 Kan. 12, 20, 935 P.2d
1054, 1059-60 (1997) (recognizing cause of action for retaliatory
demotion); Powers v. Springfield City Sch., No. 98-CA-10, slip op., 1998 WL
336782, at *5-6 (Ohio Ct. App., June 26, 1998) (recognizing cause of action
for wrongful denial of promotion).13
In Zimmerman, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed the identical question
presented in this case: whether the statutory prohibition on employers
discriminating against an employee who files a workers' compensation claim
gives rise to a common law cause of action. 164 Ill. 2d at 31. Although
the Illinois court had recognized a wrongful discharge action in such
situations, it refused to adopt a cause of action for lesser disciplinary
actions, holding that to do so would 'replace the well-developed element of
discharge with a new, ill-defined, and potentially all-encompassing concept
of retaliatory conduct or discrimination.' Id. at 39.
The basic premise behind the wrongful discharge claim as related to the
workers' compensation statute is to ensure that employees are able to
utilize the benefits offered by that statute. When an employee
successfully files for workers' compensation and retains his or her
position, this purpose is effectuated. However, when an employee is
wrongfully discharged for filing or expressing an intent to file a workers'
compensation claim, the purpose is frustrated. Without the claim for
retaliatory discharge, the employee would be placed in the position of
choosing between his or her job and seeking the remedies afforded under the
workers' compensation statute. See Zimmerman, 164 Ill. 2d at 33. The same
choice would not arise to an employee who faces a lesser disciplinary
action. Extending the wrongful discharge cause of action to lesser
disciplinary actions would allow an employee to obtain greater rights than
the workers' compensation statute otherwise allows. This would upset both
the balance struck by the workers' compensation statute and by the tort of
wrongful discharge generally.
But even if I agreed that wrongful discharge should be extended to lesser
employer actions, I cannot agree that the conduct here meets the majority's
test. Robel has simply not met her burden to prove that Fred Meyer
discriminated against her in some way or that the discrimination was
causally connected to her workers' compensation claim. See majority at 15-
16.
The findings of fact do not support the conclusion that Fred Meyer
'discriminated' against Robel14 because she filed a workers' compensation
claim.15 After suffering a back injury at work, Robel successfully filed
for workers' compensation. There is no indication that Fred Meyer
attempted to prevent her from filing this claim or that she was in any way
denied benefits. The record also clearly shows that Fred Meyer
accommodated her injury by giving her a light duty shift. In fact, only
the 'slip and fall' incident is even related to Robel's filing of a
workers' compensation claim.16
Finally, to satisfy the third prong of the Wilmot test adopted by the
majority, Robel must show that the discharge was motivated by the
plaintiff's protected activity. Wilmot, 118 Wn.2d at 68. Although
tracking the language of the Wilmot test, the trial court's finding that
there was 'a direct causal connection between Robel's protected activity
and the adverse employment action,'17 does not clearly establish that the
workers' compensation claim motivated the adverse actions of Robel's co-
workers. Taken as a whole, the record shows a pattern of negative
treatment by Robel's co-workers that began nearly six months before she
filed her claim and involved many statements completely unrelated to her
claim.18 Therefore, I disagree with the majority that Robel satisfied her
burden to prove the second two elements of her retaliation claim.
CONCLUSION
Although Robel was treated horribly by her fellow Fred Meyer employees, the
adverse treatment was attributable to personality conflicts among these
employees and not to management action or inaction. Thus, I do not believe
that such treatment gives rise to any sustainable claim against her
employer under
Washington law. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority's
opinion to the contrary.
1 Roundup Corp. does business as Fred Meyer, Inc. For consistency, I will
use the name 'Fred Meyer' when referring to Roundup Corp.
2 Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1334 (Finding of Fact 31).
3 CP at 1334 (Finding of Fact 31).
4 Because I find that the harassment suffered by Robel was not motivated by
her disability, I see no need to address whether the harassment was
properly imputed to Fred Meyer under the Glasgow framework. However, I
believe the majority's attempt to qualify Potts as a 'manager' as the term
is used in Glasgow is inappropriate. This court has never defined the term
'manager' for the purpose of hostile work environment actions and I do not
believe it is proper to make such broad assertions as to whom is covered by
the term in this case, especially given the trial court's failure to make a
specific finding on the issue. See 6A Washington Pattern Jury
Instructions: Civil 330.23, at 243 cmt. (1997) ('There is no Washington
case which examines the term 'manager' for purposes of imputing liability
to the employing entity.'); Henningsen v. Worldcom, Inc., 102 Wn. App. 828,
837-38, 9 P.3d 948 (2000).
5 CP at 1336 (Finding of Fact 47).
6 CP 1332 (Finding of Fact 19).
7 After giving Snyder a raise, Hall told her that if she told anyone where
she got the raise from, Hall would 'literally hunt Ms. Snyder down and
'kill her.'' Snyder, 145 Wn.2d at 237. In addition, when Snyder told Hall
that she would not work an unpaid Saturday, Hall accused Snyder of
insubordination. Id.
8 Although the majority repeatedly emphasizes the titles of employees Potts
and Smith ('deli manager' and 'assistant deli manager' respectively), the
law of agency does not differentiate between various levels of employees.
See 16 David K. DeWolf & Keller W. Allen, Washington Practice: Tort Law and
Practice sec.sec. 3.2, 3.3, at 82-84 (quoting Restatement (Second) of
Agency sec. 220 (1958) (''{a} servant is a person employed to perform
services in the affairs of another and who with respect to the physical
conduct in the performance of the services is subject to the other's
control or right to control.'')). Therefore, the fact that Smith
participated in the abusive behavior or that Potts was aware of it is
irrelevant as to whether liability should be imposed on Fred Meyer.
9 CP at 1336 (Finding of Fact 50).
10 The trial court found that 'Fred Meyer, through the acts of its managers,
participated, authorized, knew and/or should have known of the verbal and
non-verbal harassment of Robel in the work setting subsequent to July 14,
1996.' CP at 1335 (Finding of Fact 38). However, this finding, when
compared with other findings of the trial court, is insufficient to
establish that Fred Meyer 'directed' its employees to treat Robel badly.
See, e.g., CP at 1334 (Finding of Fact 30) ('Subsequent to . . . July 14,
1996, Robel was subjected to verbal and non-verbal harassment in the work
setting by co-employees and Fred Meyer's management personnel,
notwithstanding a directive to cease.').
11 Under RCW 51.48.025(2), '{a}ny employee who believes that he or she has
been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by an employer in
violation of this section may file a complaint with the director alleging
discrimination within ninety days of the date of the alleged violation. . .
. (3) {i}f the director determines that this section has not been violated,
the employee may institute the action on his or her own behalf.' There is
no indication that Robel filed such a claim with the director in this case.
12 See also Michael D. Moberly & Carolann E. Doran, The Nose of the Camel:
Extending the Public Policy Exception Beyond the Wrongful Discharge
Context, 13 Lab. Law. 371, 372 (1997) (finding that although public policy
exception to employment at will doctrine has been recognized in 39 states,
'it rarely has been applied in cases involving employer actions other than
discharge').
13 Although California has recognized a cause of action for wrongful
demotion, it did so by finding that the plaintiff had an implied
contractual agreement with the employer not to demote without good cause.
Scott v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 11 Cal. 4th 454, 466, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 427,
904 P.2d 834 (1995).
14 As noted above, the majority does not define the term 'discrimination' as
used in this context. I would interpret this term to require an actual
adverse employment action, such as a demotion or adverse transfer, or a
hostile work environment that amounts to an adverse employment action.
15 Because the words 'retaliation' and 'unlawful' in findings of fact 35 and
36 carry a legal implication, they are more accurately characterized as a
legal conclusion. See cf. Woodruff, 95 Wn.2d at 396. Thus, these
conclusions are subject to review.
16 CP at 1333 (Finding of Fact 23) ('On or about August 1, 1996, Robel was
at the display table, and Ware and another deli worker laughed, acted out a
slip and fall. Robel testified one of them yelled ''Oh, I hurt my back,
L&I, L&I.'').
17 CP at 1335 (Finding of Fact 37).
18 See, e.g., CP at 1330-33, 1337-38 (Findings of Fact 7, 12, 15, 25, 63,
65).
EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court | Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101