Richardson v. Hennly
434 S.E.2d 772 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1993
Facts
Bonnie Richardson, an employee, suffered severe allergic reactions to a coworker's pipe smoke, leading to hospitalizations and eventual termination for excessive absenteeism. She sued the coworker for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the employer for a Georgia Equal Employment for the Handicapped Code violation and other torts. The trial court granted summary judgment to the coworker on the battery and emotional distress claims but denied the employer's motion.
Procedural history
Bonnie Richardson filed suit against her former employer, First Federal, and coworker, J. R. Hennly, Jr. Both defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Hennly's motion for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress but denied it for interference with contractual relations. First Federal's motion for summary judgment was denied. Richardson appealed the partial summary judgment granted to Hennly (Case No. A93A0680), and First Federal appealed the denial of its motion (Case No. A93A0807) after interlocutory review was granted, with both cases consolidated for this opinion.
Issue
Can intentionally directed pipe smoke constitute battery, and can a coworker's repetitive smoking, knowing of an employee's severe allergic reaction, amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress in a workplace setting? Also, did the employee meet the definition of "handicapped" under state law?
Holding
The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the coworker on the battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, finding that pipe smoke can constitute battery and that the coworker's conduct could be found outrageous by a jury. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment to the employer on the handicapped discrimination claim.
Rule
An unlawful touching for battery can be indirect, such as by precipitating a material substance like smoke upon a person, if done with intent to cause harm. For intentional infliction of emotional distress, extreme and outrageous conduct in a workplace, considering power dynamics, awareness of susceptibility, and severe harm, can be actionable without physical impact. An employee whose impairment causes difficulty in retaining employment may be considered "handicapped."
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.