## Facts

- Nathan Nagata, an employee of Garden Isle Telecommunications, provided a urine sample for workplace drug testing on January 19, 1999.
- Quest Diagnostics tested the sample and reported to Garden Isle’s medical review officer that the specimen was inconsistent with human urine.
- Garden Isle terminated Nagata on January 25, 1999, based on the reported result.
- Nagata sought reinstatement and requested retesting, but was told retesting was not permitted under applicable regulations.
- Quest later determined that, during a period including Nagata’s test, it used improper creatinine-measurement procedures that prevented it from confirming whether the specimen met federal criteria for a “substituted” sample.
- On January 10, 2001, Quest canceled the test and instructed that personnel action taken based on the test should be canceled.
- Garden Isle informed Nagata of the error and offered reinstatement on January 25, 2001.
- Nagata alleged severe emotional distress during the intervening period, and his IIED claim focused on Quest’s alleged intentional or reckless delay in disclosing the testing error.

## Issues

1. Whether there were genuine disputes of material fact on the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Hawaiʻi law based on Quest’s alleged delay in disclosing its drug-testing error.
2. Whether Quest was entitled to summary judgment because the conduct was not “outrageous” as a matter of law or because Nagata’s distress was caused solely by the employer’s termination decision rather than Quest’s later omission.

## Decision

- The court denied Quest’s motion for summary judgment on Count IV (IIED).
- The court found triable fact questions on whether Quest’s alleged non-disclosure was intentional or reckless, “outrageous,” and a cause of Nagata’s severe emotional distress.
- The court denied Nagata’s Rule 56(f) request for a continuance as moot because summary judgment was denied.

## Legal Principles

- Under Hawaiʻi law, IIED requires: (1) intentional or reckless conduct, (2) conduct that is outrageous and beyond all bounds of decency, (3) causation, and (4) severe emotional distress.
- Conduct that is merely negligent generally does not satisfy the “outrageousness” element; the assessment is often fact-dependent and may be reserved for the jury where reasonable minds could differ.
- Causation for IIED may be shown where the defendant’s later omission plausibly prolonged or exacerbated distress, even if a third party’s earlier act (such as termination) initially triggered the harm.
- Summary judgment is improper where the record would permit a reasonable jury to find outrageous conduct, severe distress, and causation.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the IIED claim to proceed because a reasonable jury could find that Quest’s alleged delay in disclosing a material drug-testing error was outrageous and that the delay prolonged or worsened Nagata’s severe emotional distress, creating genuine disputes of material fact on intent, causation, and severity.


Nagata v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (D. Haw. 2004)