## Facts

- Elizabeth Graham, an African American student, attended an English Studies class taught by teacher John Birchler at a public high school in the Guilderland Central School District.
- The day after a “Homosexual Awareness Assembly,” a student asked in class why people should not use an anti-gay slur.
- In response, Birchler pointed to Graham, the only African American student in the class, and used a racial epithet directed at her as an example, asking her to explain how it feels to be called that term.
- Graham and her parents sued the school district and Birchler, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) among other claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding the alleged conduct did not meet the IIED “extreme and outrageous” requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged “extreme and outrageous” conduct sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York law based on a teacher’s classroom use of a racial epithet directed at a student.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the dismissal of the IIED claim for failure to state a cause of action.
- The court held that, even accepting the allegations as true, the teacher’s remarks—though “reprehensible,” “insensitive,” and “inappropriate”—did not, as a matter of law, “transcend all bounds of decency” as required for IIED.
- The court emphasized the strict application of the IIED standard in New York and relied on precedent treating even highly offensive verbal abuse, including racial or ethnic slurs, as generally insufficient without more extreme circumstances.
- A dissent would have permitted the IIED claim to proceed, reasoning that a teacher’s targeted racial humiliation of the only African American student in front of classmates, given the power imbalance and public setting, could be found “extreme and outrageous” by a factfinder.

## Legal Principles

- To plead IIED in New York, a plaintiff must allege conduct that is “extreme and outrageous,” meaning it “transcend[s] all bounds of decency” and is “atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”
- New York courts apply the “extreme and outrageous” element strictly; many forms of severe verbal abuse, including slurs and epithets, may be deemed insufficient as a matter of law absent additional aggravating facts.
- On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts assume the pleaded facts are true but may dismiss where the alleged conduct does not satisfy the legal threshold for IIED.

## Conclusion

The court held that a teacher’s single, classroom-based use of a racial epithet directed at a student, while morally condemnable, did not meet New York’s demanding “extreme and outrageous” standard for IIED at the pleading stage, and it affirmed dismissal of the claim.


Graham v. Guilderland Cent. Sch. Dist., 256 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1998)