## Facts

- Linda Bodewig, a young part-time checker at a K-Mart store, had a dispute arise at her register with customer Alice Golden over the price of curtains.
- Golden left the checkout area with a clerk, leaving merchandise at the counter; during her absence, Bodewig moved the items to the service counter, voided the partial register slip, and began checking out other customers.
- Golden returned several minutes later, claimed she had left $20 on top of her merchandise, and loudly demanded the money from Bodewig, attracting attention from customers and store personnel.
- A store manager intervened, pulled out and looked into Bodewig’s jacket pockets, searched the surrounding area, and checked the register, which balanced.
- Despite finding no money, the manager directed Bodewig to go to the women’s restroom and to disrobe in the presence of a female assistant manager and Golden; no money was found.
- Golden remained in the store afterward, watching Bodewig while she worked, and later discovered at home she had not lost $20.
- Bodewig alleged emotional distress (including sleeplessness, crying, and nervousness) and later resigned, stating she felt humiliated and monitored.

## Issues

1. Whether K-Mart’s conduct in directing an employee to submit to a strip search under these circumstances could be found “outrageous” and beyond the bounds of social toleration, supporting intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
2. Whether Golden’s public accusations and insistence on a search could support IIED based on intent or recklessness.
3. Whether the evidence of Bodewig’s emotional distress was sufficient to create a triable issue on “severe” emotional distress.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper where reasonable jurors could differ on outrageousness, intent/recklessness, and severity of distress.

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for K-Mart and Golden and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Bodewig, a jury could find K-Mart’s actions sufficiently extreme and socially intolerable to constitute IIED, given the employer-employee power imbalance and the decision to require disrobing after ordinary checks revealed no discrepancy.
- The court held a jury could also find Golden acted with intent to cause distress or in reckless disregard of a substantial probability of causing distress by publicly accusing theft, persisting after checks failed to confirm her claim, and participating in the restroom search.
- The court held the severity of Bodewig’s distress was for the jury on this record and was not resolved as a matter of law at the summary-judgment stage.

## Legal Principles

- IIED requires conduct so extreme in degree and so outrageous in character as to exceed the bounds of social toleration, along with intent or recklessness and severe emotional distress.
- On summary judgment, the evidence and reasonable inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
- Whether conduct is sufficiently outrageous and whether distress is sufficiently severe are commonly jury questions when reasonable persons could reach different conclusions from the record.
- An employer-employee relationship may intensify the coercive effect of conduct and support a finding of outrageousness where workplace authority effectively compels humiliating compliance.

## Conclusion

The court held that a coerced strip search of an employee to satisfy a customer’s theft accusation, and the customer’s persistent public accusation and participation in the search, presented triable issues of outrageous conduct, intent or recklessness, and severe emotional distress; summary judgment for both defendants was improper.


Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc., 54 Or. App. 480, 635 P.2d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)