United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
THIS
CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Cynthia
Archbold's Motion to Dismiss [DE 15]. The Court has
carefully considered the entire Court file and is otherwise
fully advised in the premises.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Patrick Leach (“Plaintiff”), a former student at
Palm Beach State College, has filed a seven count complaint
against the District Board of Trustees of Palm Beach d/b/a
Palm Beach State College, and his composition instructor
Cynthia A. Archbold (“Archbold”). Plaintiff
alleges that he has difficulty reading due to a disability,
[1] and
that therefore, the act of asking Plaintiff to read in front
of the class constituted the intentional infliction of
emotional distress as well as invasion of privacy. Archbold
asserts that Plaintiff fails to state adequately a claim for
either tort for multiple reasons.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Rule
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). The Supreme Court has held that "[w]hile a
complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does
not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's
obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his
‘entitlement to relief' requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted).
"To
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotations and
citations omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Thus,
"only a complaint that states a plausible claim for
relief survives a motion to dismiss." Id. at
1950. When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must
accept all of the plaintiff's allegations as true in
determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim for which
relief could be granted. Hishon v. King &
Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984).
DISCUSSION
I.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress
In
Count IV, Plaintiff alleges that on Wednesday, February 24,
2016, during her composition class in front of 20 or more
students, Archbold intentionally or recklessly requested that
Plaintiff read aloud to his classmates when she knew of his
disability or should have known that Plaintiff could not
perform the requested task of reading and that emotional
distress would likely result. Compl. ¶ 66. It is further
alleged that Archbold intentionally or recklessly responded
to Plaintiff in such a manner as to force Plaintiff to
disclose his disability to his classmates when Archbold knew
or should have know that emotional distress would likely
result. Compl. ¶ 67. Plaintiff then asserts that on
Monday, February 29, 2016, Archbold again intentionally or
recklessly requested that Plaintiff read aloud in class when
Archbold knew of Plaintiff's disability and knew or
should have known Plaintiff could not perform the requested
task of reading and that emotional distress would likely
result. Compl. ¶ 68. On Wednesday, March 16, 2016,
Plaintiff claims that during the class, Archbold
intentionally and recklessly requested that Plaintiff recite
an essay which was typed in fine print when Archbold knew of
Plaintiff's disability and knew or should have known
Plaintiff could not perform the requested task of reading and
that emotional distress would likely result. Compl. ¶
69. Subsequently during that class, after Plaintiff did not
read the essay as instructed, Archbold intentionally and
recklessly stated to Plaintiff, “I am trying to give
you an equal opportunity to participate in this class,
” in front of a giggling audience of students when
Archbold knew of Plaintiff's disability and knew or
should have known Plaintiff could not perform the requested
task of reading and that emotional distress would likely
result. Compl. ¶ 70. Plaintiff alleges feeling severe
emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment due to
Archbold's conduct. Compl. ¶¶ 25, 73.
Under
Florida law, to state a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, the following four elements must be
shown: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) an intent to
cause, or reckless disregard to the probability of causing,
emotional distress; (3) severe emotional distress suffered by
the plaintiff; and (4) that the conduct complained of caused
the plaintiff's severe emotional distress. Hart v.
United States, 894 F.2d 1539, 1548 (11th Cir.),
cert. denied, 498 U.S. 980 (1990). In
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So.2d
277 (Fla. 1985), the Florida Supreme Court recognized the
tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
adopted the standard of § 46, Restatement (Second) of
Torts as the appropriate benchmark for the cause of action.
Id. at 278-79. The comment to § 46 adds the
following to this definition:
Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so
outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go
beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as
atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the
facts to an average member of the community would arouse his
resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim,
“Outrageous!”
Metropolitan Life, 467 So.2d at 278-79 (quoting
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965)). The
question of what constitutes outrageous conduct is judged by
an objective test. Id. Moreover, the issue is
ordinarily one of law to be resolved by the court, rather
than a question of fact to be resolved by a jury.
Metropolitan Life, 467 So.2d at 279; Dependable
Life Ins. Co. v. Harris, 510 So.2d 985, 988 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 1987).
Florida
courts have construed the parameters of this cause of action
extremely narrowly. Whether a claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress will be held is highly
dependent on the allegations in the particular case.
Gillis v. SportsAuthority, Inc., 123
F.Supp.2d 611, 616 (S.D. Fla. 2000). In Doe v. Board of
CountyCommissioners, Palm Beach County,
Florida, 815 F.Supp. 1448, 1450 (S.D. Fla. 1992), the
...