## Facts

- A Black construction worker was employed by a subcontractor.
- A supervising employee of the general contractor directed a profane racial epithet at the worker and ordered him removed from the jobsite.
- The worker alleged the incident caused severe emotional distress and related physical symptoms, and that he was unable to continue working.
- The worker sued the general contractor for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint alleging a supervisor’s profane racial slur and jobsite expulsion sufficiently pleads “outrageous” conduct for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2. Whether the Workers’ Compensation Act bars an employee’s tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on an employer’s intentional, outrageous conduct.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the dismissal.
- The alleged conduct could be found “outrageous,” particularly given the racial epithet and the power imbalance between supervisor and worker.
- Severe emotional distress was adequately alleged for pleading purposes.
- Workers’ compensation exclusivity did not bar a civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress where the complaint alleged intentional, outrageous conduct outside risks inherent in employment discipline.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intent to cause distress or reckless disregard of the probability of causing distress, (3) severe emotional distress, and (4) causation.
- Outrageousness may be shown by abuse of a position of authority or by conduct calculated to humiliate, including racially degrading epithets.
- At the pleading stage, a court accepts well-pleaded facts as true and asks whether the alleged conduct could be regarded as outrageous by a reasonable factfinder.
- Workers’ compensation exclusivity generally covers industrial injuries, but it does not necessarily preempt a tort claim based on intentional, outrageous misconduct that is not a normal incident of the employment relationship.

## Conclusion

The court held that a supervisor’s profane racial slur and jobsite expulsion, alleged to have caused severe emotional harm, can constitute outrageous conduct supporting intentional infliction of emotional distress, and such a claim is not barred at the pleading stage by workers’ compensation exclusivity.


Alcorn v. Anbro Eng’g, Inc., 2 Cal. 3d 493 (1970)