A federal judge from the District of Connecticut has denied a motion to dismiss brought by a mother, who was sued by an athletic director after multiple encounters in which she allegedly shouted and cursed the AD in public.
Specifically, the court found that defendant mom, Cathy Finkle, failed to sufficiently rebut the East Haven Public Schools AD Fred Balsamo’s claim that she either negligently or intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him.
The incidents leading to the litigations started in March 2004 when Finkle telephoned Balsamo’s office numerous times expressing discontent. During these calls, Finkle criticized, belittled and ridiculed other players.
Then, in April 2004, Finkle telephoned Balsamo again in anger to protest the fact that her son had played in the outfield, rather than third base, during one of two back-to-back junior varsity baseball games. Finkle informed Balsamo the purpose of her call was to send a message that, if her son was not allowed to play third base in the next baseball season, the Baseball Coach would lose his job. Finkle concluded the call by warning, “You better not f— my kid!”
In October 2004, Finkle once more telephoned Balsamo, except this time originally only called and hung up the phone. She later called again, only this time went on a tirade about her displeasure with the fact that her son was not made a captain of either his baseball or hockey teams. Finkle leveled harsh criticism on all of the coaches who worked under Balsamo and the other students who played on her son’s hockey and baseball teams. This tirade continued for approximately 45 minutes.
Then finally, on the evening of November 2, 2004, Finkle confronted Balsamo at the end of a volleyball tournament game at East Haven High School Gym. In front of several hundred onlookers, Finkle screamed at Balsamo, “Why didn’t you let Jordan Vollono play? You suck, you asshole! You better fix this!”
Balsamo filed a lawsuit for the infliction of emotional distress.
The court wrote that in order to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Connecticut law, a plaintiff must prove “(1) that the actor intended to inflict emotional distress or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that the defendant’s conduct was the cause of the plaintiff’s distress; and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was severe.” Appleton v. Bd. of Educ. of the Town of Stonington, 254 Conn. 205, 210, 757 A.2d 1059 (2000). Whether the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous is initially a question for the court to address. See id. “Only where reasonable minds disagree does it become an issue for the jury.” Id.
To be extreme and outrageous, the defendant’s conduct must exceed “all bounds usually tolerated by decent society . . . .” See id. The court went to describe what constituted the behavior:
”[l]iability has been found only where the conduct has been 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. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, ‘Outrageous!’ Id. (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 46 cmt. d, 73 (1965)).
Connecticut courts have held that “insults, verbal taunts, threats, indignities, annoyances, petty oppressions, or conduct that displays bad manners or results in hurt feelings, do not support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Miner v. Town of Cheshire, 126 F. Supp. 2d 184, 195 (D. Conn. 2000) (citations omitted)
Therefore, Finkle argued that in light of contemporary standards of social decency, her behavior could not be considered outrageous.
“However,” the court wrote, “taking the facts alleged by Balsamo as true, the court cannot conclude at this stage of the case that Balsamo will be unable to prove a set of facts entitling him to relief.”
The court added that in light of the liberal pleading standard under Rule 8, Balsamo has adequately alleged a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Thus, it denied Finkle’s motion to dismiss.
Fred P. Balsamo v. Cathy Finkle, et al.; D. Conn.; Civil Action NO. 3:06-CV-1325 JCH; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36052; 5/17/2007.
Attorneys on record: (for plaintiffs) John R. Williams, New Haven, CT. (for defendants) Lisa Grasso Egan, Rachel Volkman Kushel, Stephen M. Sedor, Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese-Costa PC, Bridgeport, CT. Frederick M. O’Brien, Regnier, Taylor, Curran & Eddy, Hartford, CT. Catherine S. Nietzel, Hugh F. Keefe, Nancy Fitzpatrick Myers, Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante, New Haven, CT. Hugh F. Keefe, Nancy Fitzpatrick Myers, Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante, New Haven, CT; David Lee Weiss, Cohen & Acampora, East Haven, CT.
