Also known as: inflict severe emotional distress · inflicting severe emotional distress · IIED · intentional infliction of emotional distress
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An intentional tort imposing liability when a defendant engages in conduct so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. The actor must intend to cause severe emotional distress or act with reckless disregard of the high probability that such distress will result.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Members of a small church picket a military funeral from public land one thousand feet away, displaying signs expressing their views on government policy and homosexuality. Family members attending the funeral see the signs and suffer severe emotional distress. Because the picketing addresses matters of public concern and involves no additional unprotected conduct, the First Amendment bars recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A national magazine publishes a parody advertisement depicting a well-known minister in a crude sexual scenario. The minister, a public figure, suffers severe emotional distress. Because the parody contains no false statement of fact made with actual malice, the First Amendment prevents liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A city lifeguard supervisor repeatedly subjects female employees to offensive touching and sexual comments over several years. One employee suffers severe emotional distress and sues the city. The claim proceeds under Title VII standards for hostile work environment rather than as an independent intentional infliction of emotional distress action against the municipality.
An employer terminates an at-will employee after learning of the employee's outside business activities that create a conflict. The employee claims the manner of termination caused severe emotional distress. Because the employment relationship is at-will and the conduct does not meet the extreme and outrageous threshold, no intentional infliction claim lies.
An insurer refuses to settle a claim in bad faith, leading to a large verdict against the insured and resulting severe emotional distress. The insured seeks punitive damages. Due process limits the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages even when the underlying conduct supports an intentional infliction claim.
An employee alleges that after her employment contract ended, her former employer continued to harass her on racial grounds, causing severe emotional distress. The claim cannot proceed under the statute governing contractual relationships because the conduct occurred after the contract terminated.
The First Amendment bars recovery when the speech concerns a matter of public concern or constitutes protected parody or opinion about a public figure, unless the plaintiff proves a false statement of fact made with actual malice. Courts apply this standard to protect expressive freedoms even when the speech causes severe emotional distress.
The plaintiff must prove that the publication contained a false statement of fact made with actual malice. Outrageous parody or opinion that no reasonable person would interpret as stating actual facts receives full constitutional protection.
…affairs, sued petitioner and its publisher, petitioner Larry Flynt, to recover damages for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against respondent on the privacy claim, and submitted the other two claims to a jury. The jury found for petitioners on the defamation claim, but…
…liar,” and expressed happiness that Matthew was dead. Petitioner filed a diversity action against respondents for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED
…in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell , 485 U.S. 46 (1988), to be precisely on point. There, we found that the use of a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to impose liability for the publication of a satirical critique violated the First Amendment. There was no doubt that Virginia’s tort of
…he had been retaliated against for complaining about Levine’s discriminatory conduct. Nassar also asserted state-law claims for
…action purported to state claims of (1) abuse of process, (2) invasion of privacy, (3) negligence, (4) wantonness, and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress
Yes. The outrageous-conduct requirement for infliction of severe emotional distress demands conduct so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, a higher threshold than the highly offensive standard applied to intrusion claims.
Courts examine the full context, including domain names, page banners, absurd images, and the publication's established satirical reputation. When these signals make clear that no reasonable person would interpret the content as fact, the First Amendment bars IIED liability even if some readers are initially misled.