Ford Vs. Revlon Inc. Case Brief

Ford v. Revlon, Inc.

153 Ariz. 38, 734 P.2d 580 (1987)

Facts: Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant. Plaintiff manager invited her out to dinner to discuss business, and at dinner manager asked Plaintiff to spend the night with him. Plaintiff rejected the offer and the manager stated that she will regret it. The manager started giving Plaintiff an extremely difficult time. He physically touched Plaintiff in a sexual manner and made many derogatory comments. Plaintiff reported this to the supervisors on not one but many occasions. But no action was taken. Plaintiff even tried to commit suicide. Then finally after a year and few months since the sexual harassment had started, the manager was terminated.

Procedure: Plaintiff sued both the manager and Defendant for assault and battery, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found the manager liable of assault and battery but not liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found Defendant liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Only Defendant appealed. The court of appeals reversed jury's verdict ruling that if the manager (agent) was not found liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress , then Defendant (principal) cannot be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Issue: May the failure of an employer to take appropriate action in response to an employee's complaints of sexual harassment by a supervisory employee constitute the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Ruling: Yes; Defendant's failure to take appropriate action in response to Plaintiff's complaint of sexual harassment constituted the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Rationale: According to the court, "A corporation could be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it's supervisors knew of the sexual harassment of an employee a manager and failed to stop it. Now to determine if Defendant is in fact liable, three prong test should be conducted:

1. The conduct of the defendant must be extreme and outrageous

2. The defendant must either intend to cause emotional distress or recklessly disregard the near certainty that such distress will result from his conduct

3. Severe