Representing employers and healthcare providers in the areas of corporate law, litigation, managed care, labor and workers' compensation.

667-669 State Street, 2nd Floor
New Haven, Connecticut 06511
Tel (203) 787-7000
Fax (203) 787-7001

IMPORTANT

- EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE -

CLAIMS FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST CURRENT EMPLOYERS MAY NOW BE ALLOWED BY CONNECTICUT COURTS

                                                             July, 1999

A new decision from the Connecticut Superior Court in the case of Karanda v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft allows an employee to sue his or her employer for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on actions taken while that employee still works for the employer. This holding departs from the Connecticut Supreme Court's earlier opinion that an employee could only sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress if that distress was caused by the employer's unreasonable conduct during the process of terminating the employee. Since neither the Connecticut Supreme Court nor the Appellate Court has recently addressed a case involving negligent infliction of emotional distress without a termination, the Court's decision in Karanda places employers in a difficult and unclear position.

Karanda, a welder, claimed that she was threatened repeatedly with physical violence by a co-worker. Karanda reported the incidents to her supervisor and unit manager, who assured her that she would not be harmed. Karanda sought medical treatment for stress, took medication, and missed a few weeks of work. When she returned, she discovered that her work station had been moved across from the co-worker who had harassed her. She alerted personnel and learned that her supervisors had never reported the incidents. A subsequent investigation by the employer determined that Karanda's work environment was "safe." After Karanda's second transfer request was not granted, her physician deemed her totally disabled. Karanda then filed a lawsuit against her employer for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In deciding that a working employee may bring an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress against his or her employer, the Court examined the 1993 restriction on workers' compensation stress claims. In 1993, the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act was amended to exclude mental and emotional impairments from the definition of personal injuries; such conditions are now only compensable under that Act if they result from a physical injury. As Judge Hale noted in Karanda, unless an employee could bring a separate claim, he or she would not be able to recover for emotional distress. The Karanda Court did not believe that this was the result intended by the legislative changes to the Act, and concluded that the Connecticut Supreme Court would likely allow this type of lawsuit. Therefore, the Court held that an employee must meet the usual standard for claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress: "[i]n order for the [employee] to properly state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the [employee] must allege that the [employer] should have realized that its conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and that distress, if it were caused, might result in bodily harm."

Although it is unclear whether Karanda will be followed by the State's appellate courts, employers should be aware that they can now be subjected to liability for numerous activities that may occur in the workplace. Unfortunately, this means that employers need to take reasonable precautions against actions that may cause distress to employees, and should promptly and fairly investigate any employee complaints of harassment. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the decision or wish to discuss this case, please do not hesitate to call Andy Cohen, John Letizia or any of the other lawyers at Letizia, Ambrose & Cohen, P.C.⁽¹⁾

1. The representations made in this letter are the analysis of the law offices of Letizia, Ambrose & Falls, P.C. This information and analysis is provided gratuitously and for informational purposes only. You are encouraged to consult with the appropriate legal counsel prior to relying on this information or analysis.