## Facts

- Loretta and Charles White owned a home that was damaged by a fire.
- The fire occurred during a strike involving the city’s fire department.
- The International Association of Firefighters, Local 42 (the union) was alleged to have taken strike-related actions that included refusing to respond to fire alarms or calls, setting up picket lines, and sabotaging fire equipment.
- Missouri law expressly prohibited strikes by public-employee unions.
- The Whites alleged the fire was not brought under control because the firefighting response during the strike involved inadequate equipment and inexperienced personnel.
- The Whites sued the union and pleaded two counts:
  - Count I sought damages based on the union’s alleged violation of Missouri’s statute barring public-employee strikes.
  - Count II alleged the union’s conduct amounted to the tort of outrage (intentional infliction of emotional distress).
- The trial court granted the union’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
- The Whites appealed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri’s statute prohibiting strikes by public employees creates (expressly or by implication) a private civil cause of action for damages in favor of individuals allegedly harmed by the strike.
2. Whether the Whites’ allegations that the union refused to respond to alarms, picketed, and sabotaged equipment stated a claim for the tort of outrage under Missouri law.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- As to Count I, the court held that the public-employee strike prohibition did not provide a private damages remedy for members of the public; the statutory violation, by itself, did not state a civil claim against the union.
- As to Count II, the court held that the petition did not plead facts meeting Missouri’s demanding requirements for the tort of outrage, including conduct qualifying as “extreme and outrageous” and resulting severe emotional distress.
- The result was an affirmance of the dismissal of both counts.

## Legal Principles

- A statute that prohibits certain conduct does not automatically create a private right to recover damages; a private cause of action exists only when the legislature clearly provides one, either expressly or by necessary implication.
- Courts distinguish between (a) a statute’s making conduct unlawful and (b) civil liability for damages; illegality alone does not substitute for a recognized civil cause of action.
- On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court tests the legal sufficiency of the pleaded facts; dismissal is proper when, even taking the allegations as true, the petition does not state a recognized claim for relief.
- Missouri’s tort of outrage (intentional infliction of emotional distress) requires allegations of conduct that is extreme and outrageous, intent or reckless disregard of the risk of causing emotional distress, and severe emotional distress; Missouri courts apply this tort narrowly.

## Conclusion

White v. International Association of Firefighters, Local 42 held that Missouri’s ban on public-employee strikes did not, without legislative direction, give private homeowners a damages action against a striking union, and that the homeowners’ allegations also failed to satisfy Missouri’s strict pleading requirements for the tort of outrage; the appellate court therefore affirmed dismissal of the petition.


White v. International Association of Firefighters, Local 42, 738 S.W.2d 933 (1987)