## Facts

- Joan Zeltwanger worked for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. in a sales position and alleged her supervisor, Jim Webber, engaged in ongoing sexually harassing conduct that created a hostile work environment.
- Zeltwanger complained internally and contended the employer failed to adequately address the harassment; she also alleged retaliation.
- She sued Roche under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) for sexual harassment (Texas Labor Code § 21.051) and retaliation (§ 21.055), and also asserted intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Roche and Webber.
- A jury found for Zeltwanger on sexual harassment and IIED (including against Webber), but found against her on retaliation.
- The trial court required an election between overlapping recoveries; Zeltwanger elected statutory compensatory damages and attorney’s fees under the TCHRA claim and mental-anguish and punitive damages under IIED.
- The court of appeals permitted recovery under both theories (subject to the election). Roche sought further review.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may maintain an IIED claim against an employer when the same underlying conduct constitutes workplace sexual harassment for which the TCHRA provides a remedial scheme, including emotional-distress damages.
2. Whether IIED may be used as an additional or alternative recovery when the complained-of conduct is addressed by a detailed statutory cause of action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals and remanded for rendition of judgment consistent with its opinion.
- The court held that when the gravamen of the plaintiff’s complaint is sexual harassment, the plaintiff must proceed under the TCHRA unless additional facts, unrelated to sexual harassment, support an independent IIED claim.
- Because the conduct alleged against Roche supporting IIED was the same conduct underlying the statutory sexual-harassment claim, Zeltwanger could not recover on IIED against Roche.
- The disposition eliminated IIED as a basis for recovery against Roche on these facts, leaving recovery confined to the statutory framework.

## Legal Principles

- IIED in Texas functions as a “gap-filler” tort, available only when the complained-of conduct falls outside established statutory or common-law remedies.
- A plaintiff cannot maintain an IIED claim when the gravamen of the complaint is covered by another remedy; IIED is not a parallel or duplicative cause of action.
- Where the Legislature has provided a detailed statutory scheme for workplace discrimination and harassment (including emotional damages), IIED generally does not lie for the same conduct.
- IIED may proceed only if there are independent, additional facts not based on, and not intertwined with, the statutory harassment claim.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court held that IIED is unavailable against an employer when the core complaint is sexual harassment addressed by the TCHRA, absent separate, non-harassment conduct that independently supports IIED, and it remanded for judgment consistent with limiting recovery to the statutory claim.


Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. 2004)