## Facts

- Huntley Johnson, an attorney, represented Pamela Thigpen in an action involving her termination from prior employment.
- After that representation, Thigpen began working for Johnson at his law firm and remained employed for a little over one year.
- During Thigpen’s employment, Johnson repeatedly directed sexually explicit and vulgar comments toward her.
- Johnson also touched Thigpen in an unwanted sexual manner on more than one occasion.
- Thigpen sued Johnson and his law firm, asserting multiple tort claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) based on the alleged course of workplace sexual harassment.
- The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for Thigpen on claims that included IIED.
- Johnson moved for a directed verdict on the IIED claim, arguing the evidence was legally insufficient, but the trial court denied the motion and allowed the IIED claim to go to the jury.
- Johnson appealed from the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict, challenging the denial of his directed-verdict motion on IIED.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of repeated sexually explicit and vulgar remarks combined with unwanted sexual touching was sufficient for a jury to find “outrageous” conduct and severe emotional distress supporting IIED under Florida law.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying Johnson’s motion for directed verdict on the IIED claim.

## Decision

- Affirmed.
- Held that the evidence permitted a jury finding that Johnson’s conduct, as alleged and proven, was extreme and outrageous in the IIED sense, particularly because the conduct involved more than verbal harassment and included unwanted sexual touching.
- Held that Thigpen presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find severe emotional distress caused by Johnson’s conduct, so the directed verdict was properly denied.
- Recognized that Florida’s workers’ compensation scheme did not bar an employee’s IIED claim predicated on workplace sexual harassment.

## Legal Principles

- To prove IIED under Florida law, a plaintiff must show: (1) intentional (or reckless) conduct, (2) outrageous conduct, (3) causation, and (4) severe emotional distress.
- “Outrageous” conduct is conduct so extreme in degree and so atrocious that it goes beyond all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized community.
- In employment settings, Florida courts have been cautious about treating verbal harassment alone as sufficiently outrageous; allegations that pair persistent vulgar verbal abuse with repeated offensive physical contact are more likely to satisfy the outrageousness requirement.
- On a motion for directed verdict, the court considers whether, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, a reasonable jury could find for that party on the challenged claim.
- Florida law permits an IIED claim based on workplace sexual harassment notwithstanding workers’ compensation exclusivity.

## Conclusion

Thigpen v. Johnson affirmed a jury verdict on an IIED claim where an attorney/employer allegedly subjected his employee to a continuing pattern of sexually explicit, vulgar remarks and unwanted sexual touching; the appellate court concluded the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find outrageous conduct and severe distress and upheld the trial court’s refusal to direct a verdict for the employer.


Thigpen v. Johnson, 788 So. 2d 410 (2001)