## Facts

- Leta Fay Ford worked for Revlon in Phoenix, advancing from secretary to buyer.
- Revlon hired Karl Braun as purchasing manager in 1979, making him Ford’s immediate supervisor.
- In April 1980, Braun invited Ford to dinner ostensibly for business and allegedly made sexual demands and threatened retaliation when she refused.
- At a company picnic in May 1980, Braun allegedly made an explicit sexual proposition and physically restrained Ford.
- In late May 1980, Ford complained to a regional personnel manager and requested a transfer away from Braun.
- In November 1980, Ford sent a written complaint to Revlon’s headquarters again reporting sexual harassment and seeking relief.
- Despite repeated notice, Revlon did not promptly investigate or discipline Braun; remedial action was delayed for many months, and Braun was not terminated until October 1981.
- During the period of inaction, Ford developed severe emotional and physical symptoms (including high blood pressure, chest pain, nervous tics, breathing difficulty) and presented medical evidence linking her condition to Revlon’s response.
- After Revlon issued only a delayed, mild reprimand, Ford attempted suicide; Revlon then fired Braun.
- Ford sued Braun and Revlon; the jury found Revlon liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) but did not find Braun liable for IIED, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages against Revlon.
- The court of appeals reversed; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer may be held independently liable for IIED even when the supervisor accused of harassment is not found liable for IIED.
2. Whether an employer’s failure to take appropriate action after receiving complaints of sexual harassment by a supervisory employee can constitute extreme and outrageous conduct supporting IIED.
3. Whether the Arizona Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy and bars the employee’s IIED claim.
4. Whether the employee is entitled to attorney’s fees.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment for Ford.
- The court held Revlon could be independently liable for IIED based on its own conduct, notwithstanding the jury’s no-liability finding for the supervisor on IIED.
- The court held that, on these facts, Revlon’s prolonged failure to respond appropriately to known harassment could constitute extreme and outrageous conduct, undertaken at least with reckless disregard of the likelihood of causing severe emotional distress.
- The court held the Workers’ Compensation Act did not bar Ford’s intentional tort claim.
- The court held Ford was entitled to attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- IIED liability may rest on a defendant’s separate and independent conduct; an employer’s liability need not be derivative of a supervisor’s tort liability.
- An employer’s knowing, prolonged failure to investigate or remedy reported sexual harassment by a supervisor may constitute extreme and outrageous conduct when it reflects reckless disregard for the employee’s welfare.
- Severe emotional distress and related physical symptoms may support IIED damages when causally linked to the employer’s conduct.
- Workers’ compensation exclusivity generally does not preempt an intentional tort claim for IIED based on deliberate or reckless employer misconduct in handling harassment complaints.
- Attorney’s fees may be awarded to the prevailing employee when authorized under applicable law and the court determines entitlement.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employer may be directly liable for IIED when, after receiving repeated sexual-harassment complaints, it fails for an extended period to take effective action, and that such an intentional tort claim is not barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity; the judgment and damages for the employee were reinstated, along with an award of attorney’s fees.


Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 153 Ariz. 38, 734 P.2d 580 (Ariz. 1987)