Question: AARON OLSON, APPELLANT, V. CENTURYLINK, RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA
FACTS: On December 14, 2011, appellant Aaron Olson contracted to receive telephone service from respondent, CenturyLink, and applied for reduced-rate services that CenturyLink provides through Minnesota's Telephone Assistance Plan (TAP), a statewide program established to reduce telephone rates for low-income households. The respondent did not apply the reduced rate to Olson's fi rst bill but attached a blank copy of the TAP application. Olson completed the application and mailed it to the respondent, but his next bill also did not refl ect a reduced rate. Olson called the respondent and learned that the company had not received his application. Olson then faxed another application to the respondent. A few days later, he contacted the respondent company, but could not confi rm whether his application had been received.
On January 31, 2012, the respondent company disconnected Olson's telephone service. When Olson called the respondent to resolve the dispute, the company representatives repeatedly hung up on him. In April 2012, Olson fi led suit, claiming that the respondent company violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and committed intentional infl iction of emotional distress. Because he did not have the money for fi ling fees, Olson also fi led a petition to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The district court denied the petition, determining that the action was frivolous because the claims had no basis in law. Olson appealed.
ISSUE: When should a defendant be held liable in tort for intentional infl iction of emotional distress?
REASONING: To prevail on this tort, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant's conduct
(1) was extreme and outrageous,
(2) was intentional or reckless,
(3) caused emotional distress, and
(4) the distress was severe.
Extreme and outrageous conduct is behavior that is "so atrocious that it passes the boundaries of decency and is utterly intolerable to the civilized community." Furthermore, to hold a party liable in tort for intentional infl iction of emotional distress, the emotional distress must be so severe "that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it." In this case, the respondent's acts of failing to process Olson's application, disconnecting his telephone service, and hanging up on him during telephone conversations are not so atrocious that they pass the boundaries of decency. For example, previous case law Langeslag v. KYMN Inc. states that "insults, indignities, annoyances, petty oppressions, and other trivialities do not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct." The evidence provided by the appellant regarding the acts against him by the respondent mirror the acts cited by Langeslag that were previously determined not to constitute extreme and outrageous conduct.
DECISION AND REMEDY: The court affi rmed the denial of the petition by the district court in favor of the defendant.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: This case outlines the standards that must be met for a defendant to be held liable in tort for intentional infl iction of emotional distress.
CRITICAL THINKING: Notice that case law can, as in this case, serve as a restriction on our emotional response to a case. Many of us have had trouble with our phone carrier. The alleged behavior of CenturyLink is at minimum annoying, but case law lays out standards that determine the availability of remedies in cases like these. Reading the case law, describe behavior that CenturyLink would have had to engaged in for the plaintiff to have prevailed.
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING: What value is the court upholding in finding against the plaintiff?