## Facts

- Hamid Madani worked as a car salesperson for Kendall Ford, Inc., supervised by Dan David.
- While Madani was on duty at work, David allegedly ordered him to pull down his pants and publicly expose his buttocks and genitals to David and others.
- The alleged order occurred in a public area open to view by coworkers, customers, women, and children.
- Madani refused and was allegedly ordered two more times to comply; he again refused.
- Madani was terminated shortly thereafter and alleged emotional and economic harms, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Madani pleaded two tort claims: wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress (IIED).
- The trial court dismissed both claims for failure to state ultimate facts; the Court of Appeals reversed; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint states a common-law wrongful-discharge claim when it alleges termination for refusing a supervisor’s order to engage in public, indecent exposure at work.
2. Whether the same allegations sufficiently plead IIED, including the required intent and “outrageous” conduct under Oregon law.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the Court of Appeals as to wrongful discharge, holding the complaint stated a claim.
- The court reversed the Court of Appeals as to IIED, holding the complaint failed to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute the claim.
- The case was remanded with the wrongful-discharge claim reinstated and the IIED claim dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Oregon recognizes a narrow common-law tort for wrongful discharge as an exception to at-will employment when termination contravenes an important public policy, including discharge for refusing to engage in unlawful or seriously socially unacceptable conduct.
- At the pleading stage, allegations that an employer fired an employee for refusing to comply with an indecent, publicly humiliating order may fall within the wrongful-discharge exception and survive a motion to dismiss.
- An IIED claim requires pleaded facts showing (1) intent to cause severe emotional distress (or knowledge that it is substantially certain), (2) conduct that is an extraordinary transgression beyond socially tolerable bounds, and (3) resulting severe emotional distress.
- Conclusory labels that conduct was “outrageous” or “intended” to cause distress are insufficient without supporting ultimate facts from which the required intent and exceptional outrageousness can be inferred.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court held that allegations of termination for refusing a supervisor’s demand for public indecent exposure were sufficient to plead wrongful discharge, but the complaint did not plead the necessary ultimate facts to support IIED, so only the wrongful-discharge claim could proceed.


Madani v. Kendall Ford, Inc., 312 Or. 198, 818 P.2d 930 (Or. 1991)