HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-05592
i
I~
tt:
E!
0.
.
II) ,
7!
,
I
;-1
J
iI
,<
~
t...
~
J
ns
~
\l)
If)
I
::x-
C)
/
(J
,.()
(:J
l' .-
'I
009'31-OU1lO1ISepccmbcr 22. lmlllHiKKMI38310
TARA M. HARVEY,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 94- -55-1)... CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff
v.
GROFF TRACTOR &t EQUIPMENT, INC.,
KENNETH R. GROFF and
JEAN BROWN.
Defendants
NOTICE TO DEFEND
To the Defendant:
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages. you
must take action within twenty (201 days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance
personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defeme or DbJectlons to the claims set fonb aeainst
you. You are warned that If you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a Judgment may be entered
against you by the court without funber notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE TillS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A
LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE TIlE OFFICE SET FORTlI BELOW TO
FIND our WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Court House
I Counbouse Square
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: (717) 240-6200
009SJa-OOOOI/Scpccmbor 22. 199<1/JLH/KKM/J8310
TARA M. HARVEY,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
CIVIL TERM
NO. 94-
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
GROFF TRACTOR'" EQUIPMENT, INC.,
KENNETH R. GROFF and
JEAN BROWN,
Defendanlll
COMPLAINT
I. PlalntlffTara M. Harvey Is an adult Individual residing at R.D. 12, Box 179, Shermans Dale, Perry
County, Pennsylvania 17090.
2. Defendant Groff Tractor'" Equipment. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporatlDn doing business in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with offices at 6499 Carlisle Pike. Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17055.
3. Defendant Kenneth R. Groff is an adult individual residing at 2913 Sunset Drive, Camp Hill,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011, and at all times material hereto was the Chief Executive Officer of Groff
Tractor'" Equipment, Inc., acting within the scope and course of his duties for Defendant Groff Tractor '" EqulpDlllDt.
Inc.
4. Defendant Jean Brown Is an adult individual residing at 1010 West Foxcroft Drive, CampHUl',
Cumberland County. Pennsylvania 170 II, and at all times material hereto was the agent or employee of Groff TI'lIC&t:It
'" Equipment, Inc., acting within the scope and CDurse of her duties for Defendant Groff Tractor '" Equipmeot, Itlc.
C,'
_:;~
~. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Groff Tractor'" Equlpmeot, l~~
as an accounts payable clerk and was under the supervision of Defendant Jean Brown.
009SJI-OOOOIIScpccmbcr 22. I 99411LHII'KMlJ8J 10
IS. As a result of the aforesaid suicide attempt, Plaintiff has bun and In the future will be required to incur
si&nlflcant expenses sllllkin& and securing medical and psychiatric treatment in an effon to cure herself of her injuries.
16. As I result of the aforesaid suicide Ittempt. Plaintiff has been and In the future may be prevented from
Illendinl to her usual and customary occupation and dutlea. to her financial detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judlment Ilainst Defendant Jean Brown for an amount In excess of
$2S,OOO.00 with Interest and costs of suit.
COUNT II
PlaIntiff Y. Kenneth R. Groff
Intent/Dna I InnlctlDn Df EmDtlDnal Distress
17. The averments set fonh in paragraphs I through 16 are Incorporated by reference as if tho lame wero
more fully ad tonh at length herein.
18. Defendant Kenneth R. Groff as Chief Executive Officer of Defendant Groff Tractor '" Equipment, Inc.,
is reaponsible for overseeing and supervising the actiDns and conduct of his employeea.
19. It is believed and therefore averred that the actions of Defendant Jean Brown were authorized and/or
ordered by Defendant Kenneth R. Groff.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the cDnduct of Defendant Kenneth R. Groff, Plaintiff suffered
severe emotional distress, anguish and humiliation which led her to an attempt at suicide on tho premises of Gtoft
Tractor'" Equipment, Inc. by taking an overdose Df pills.
21. As a result of the aforesaid suicide attempt, Plaintiff has been and in the future will be requited to lacur
significant expensea seekinland securing medical and psychiatric treatment in an effon to cure herself of her ~
0093JI.oooolIScplcmbcr 22. 1994/ILH/KKM/JIJ 10
22. AI I reault of the aforeaald suicide attempt, Plainliffhas been and In the futuro may be prevented from
attendin,lo her usual and customary occupation and dutlea, 10 her financial detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands jud'lIlolnt a,ainst Defendant Kenneth R. Groff for an amount in excess of
$25,000.00 with Inter..t and costs of suit.
COUNT 111
PIa1ntln Y. Gron Trlldor Ii: Equipment, Inc.
Intenllonal lonlcllon of Emollonal Distress
23. The averments set fonh In parallraphs I through 22 are incorporated by reference u If the same wer.
moro fully set fonh IIlenlllh herein.
24. Defendant! JeM Brown and Kenneth R. Groff acted as described on behalf of Defendant OroffTractor
.t Equipment, Inc. and those act! occurred within the scope of the individual Defendant!' employment.
25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants Jean Brown and Kenneth R. Oroll,
Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, anguish and humiliation which led her to an attempt II suicide 011 dt.I
premisea of Oroff 1raclor &. Equipment. Inc. by taking an overdose of pills.
26. As a result of the aforesaid suicide attempt, Plaintiff has been and in the future will be required lD IlICV
sillniflcant expensea seeking and securing medical and psychiatric treatment In an effort to cure henelf of her in.iutIliL
r-~:""
...._-".,-;~>, .
27. As a result of the aforesaid suicide attempt, Plaintiff has been and in the future may be pr.........n iAti' . .
.. '-, :J:{j,~
allendin,lo her usual and customary occupation and duties, to her financial detriment and loss. ... .,ri .
.;~~i
;.;;/:j~ -
009~38-0000I15cplcmbcr 22, 1994IILH/KKM/383 10
VERIFICATION
I, TII. M. Harvey. do verity lIlalllle stattllllOnlS made in lIle foreioln, Complaint are uue and correct to lIle
best of my Imowledie. Informallon and belief. 1 understand lIlat false statemenlS made herein are subject to l.'1e
penaltiea of 18 Pa.C.S. 14904 rdallaa to unsworn falsification to authorities.
j~M~ ~)
Dated :
Q\ allqL\
plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 94-5592 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION LAW
TARA M. HARVEY,
v.
GROFF TRACTOR' EQUIPMENT,
INC., KENNETH R. GROFF and
JEAN BROWN,
.
.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
.
.
ORDER
upon consideration of the Preliminary Objections to the
Complaint filed by the Defendants and the response thereto, it is
hereby ORDERED that the Preliminary Objections are sustained and
the Co~plaint is dismissed in its entirety.
J.
Dated:
o€.\(; ltJA-L
PUAs
~ch
.g~
HAOS/iil3".1
TARA M. HARVEY, . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
.
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiff, . PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
.
v. NO. 94-5592 CIVIL TERM
GROFF TRACTOR , EQUIPMENT, CIVIL ACTION LAW
INC., KENNETH R. GROFF and
JEAN BROWN, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
DEPENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINT
Defendants, Groff Tractor , Equipment, Inc.
(ICompanY"l, Kenneth R. Groff, ("Groff"), and Jean Brown
("Brown"), by and through its attorneys, hereby preliminarily
objects to the complaint filed by Plaintiff as follows:
A. NATURE OP CLAIMS PRESENTED
1. Plaintiff asserts, in three separate counts,
causes of action involving intentional infliction of emotional
distress.
2. In Count I of the Complaint, Plaintiff
asserts a cause of action against Brown for intentional
infliction of emotional distress based upon Brown's demand that
Plaintiff schedule a medical appointment outside normal business
hours. (Complaint' 10). According to Plaintiff, Brown's demand
that Plaintiff schedule her medical appointment outside normal
business hours caused Plaintiff to attempt suicide on the
premises of the Company. (Complaint' 14).
HAOl/223e..l
3. Count II of the Complaint purports to state a
cause of action tor intentional infliction of emotional distress
against Groff who allegedly authorized and/or ordered Brown to
demand that Plaintiff schedule her medical appointment outside
normal business hours. (Complaint' 14).
4. In Count III of the Complaint, Plaintiff
seeks to hold the Company liable for the actions of its agents,
Brown and Groff, who, according to Plaintiff, committed the
previously described acts within the scope of their employment
with the company. (Complaint" 12, 1B, 24).
B. ALLEGED SUPPORTING FACTS
5. In support of her claims for int~ntional
infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiff acknowledges that, at
all times material to the Complaint, she was an employee of the
Company. (Complaint, 5). Plaintiff further acknowledges that
Brown and Groff were employees of the company. (Complaint"
3,4).
6. In January, 1993, Plaintiff was diagnosed as
being depressed, and thereafter regularly sought therapy to treat
her condition. (Complaint" 6, 7). On certain occasions,
Plaintiff was permitted to attend her therapy sessions during
normal working hours. (~., Bl. According to the Plaintiff,
she later worked through her lunch hour or after hours to "make
up" for hours missed while attending therapy. (~., 7).
HA01/22J41.1
- 2 -
7. On February 10, 1994, Plaintiff requested
time off for the purpose of seeking additional therapy. Brown
refused the Plaintiff'S request on that occasion and demanded
that the Plaintiff schedule her appointments so as to not
interfere with her work schedule. (Complaint" 9-10).
8. Groff purportedly authorized and/or ordered
Brown to refuse the Plaintiff'S request for time off. (Complaint
, 19).
9. After having her request for time off denied,
the Plaintiff allegedly attempted suicide on the premises of the
company. (Complaint' 14).
C. PLAINTII'I"S CLAIMS ARB LBGALLY INSUJ'I'ICIBNT UJlDIJt
PA.R.C.P. NO. 1028(&)(4) IN THAT TRBY ARB BARRBD
BY PBNNSYLVANIA'S WORKMBN'S COMPBNSATION ACT (ALL
COUNTS)
10. Plaintiff claims injuries for emotional
distress resulting from the conduct of Brown and Groff which
arose out of and in the course of Plaintiff's employment with the
company.
11. Plaintiff has, moreover, acknowledged that
any injury she suffered resulted from the conduct of Brown
and Groff that occurred during and pursuant to the scope of their
employment with the company.
12. Plaintiff's claims against Brown, Groff and
the Company for emotional distress are, accordingly, barred
HAOI/ZZJ4'.1
- 3 -
.
pursuant to Section 303(a) of the Pennsylvania Workmen's
Compensation Act, ("WCA") '17, Pa.C.S.A. S 4B1(a).
13. Because the WCA provides the exclusive remedy
for Plaintiff's alleged injuries, she may not maintain a cause of
action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against
Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Groff Tractor & Equipment, Inc.,
Kenneth R. Groff, and Jean Brown, respectfully request that this
Court enter an order sustaining their preliminary objection to
Plaintiff's Complaint for legal insufficiency pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. No. 102B(a) (4).
D. PLAINTIJ'J' HAS J'AILED TO ADEQUATELY STATE A CAUSB
OJ' ACTION J'OR INTBNTIONAL INFLICTION OJ' EHOTIONAL
DISTRBSS, AND HER CLAIMS ARE, THEREJ'ORB, LEGALLY
INSUJ'J'ICIENT UNDBR PA.R.C.P. NO. 1028(a)(4) (ALL
COUNTSl
14. In support of her claims against Defendants,
Plaintiff alleges that, on one occasion, Brown refused her
request for time off during hours to seek psychotherapy for the
treatment of depression.
15. Pennsylvania does not recognize a cause of
action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff's Complaint, accordingly, should be dismissed.
16. Even assuming that the courts of Pennsylvania
would recognize as viable a cause of action under a theory of
HAOl/22J4I.l
- 4 -
plaint!:f,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
TARA M. HARVEY,
v.
NO. 94-5592 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION LAW
GROFF TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT,
INC., KENNETH R. GROFF and
JEAN BROWN,
JURV TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
CERTI~ICATE O~ SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 21.t day of octo~.r,
111., a true and correct copy of the D~fendants' Preliminary
Objections to Complaint have been served by depositing a copy of
the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid to the
following:
James A. Johnson, Esquire
Joseph C. Hitchings, Esquire
Johnson, DUffie, stewart & Weidner
301 Market street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
VINCENT CANOIELLO
HAOl/22.J4'.1
"
...
.
,
TARA M. HARVEY,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintitt,
v.
NO. 94-5592 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GROFF TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT,
INC., KENNETH R. GROFF and
JEAN BROWN,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAZCZPZ rOR ENTRY or APPZARANCE
Please enter the appearance of Vincent candiello,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, One Commerce Square, 417 Walnut street,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101-1904, as counsel for Defendants,
Groff Tractor & Equipment, Inc., Kenneth R. Groff and Jean Brown
in the above-captioned proceeding.
~{itt!..~
Attorney Z.D. Number 49'1'
One Co_erce Square
417 Walnut street
HarriSburg, PA 17101-1904
(717) 237-4014
Of Counsel:
MORGAN, LEWIS , BOCKIUS
Dated: October 5, 1994
HAOJ/nOll.1
j .....
.
.
TARA M. HARVEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiff, PENNSYLVANIA
v. NO. 94-5592 CIVIL TERM
GROFF TRACTOR & EQUIPMEN'l', CIVIL ACTION - LAW
INC., KENNETH R. GROFF and
JEAN BROWN,
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CBRTI~ICATB o~ SBRVICB
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance has been served via
first class mail on the 5th day of ootober, 1994, upon the
following:
James A. Johnson, Esquire
Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire
Johnson, DUffie, Stewart & Weidner
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
:;i;<t~/A~
VI CENT CELLO
HAOI/ZZOU.I
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
In The Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 94-5592 Civil Term
Notice to Defend, Civil Action
Complaint
Tara M. Harvey
VS
Groff Tractor & Equipment Inc.,
Kenneth R. Groff and Jean Brown
Wesley Cook, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law,
says that on October 03. 1994 at 2:30 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T., he served a
true copy of the within Notice to Defend, Civil Action, Complaint, upon
the within named defendants, to wit: Groff Tractor & Equipment Inc. and
Kenneth R. Groff, by making known unto Kenneth R. Groff, defendant and adult
in charge of Groff Tractor & Equipment Inc., at 6499 Carlisle Pike,
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at the
same time handing to him personally the said true and attested copies of the
same.
Wesley Cook, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law,
says that on October 03, 1994 at 2:30 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T., he served a
true copy of the within Notice to Defend, Civil Action Complaint, upon the
within named defendant, to wit: Jean Brown, by making known unto Jean Brown,
at 6499 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its
contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and
attested copy of the same.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Serv ice
Surcharge
22.00
5.60
6.00
33.60 Pd. by Atty.
10-04-94
~~s: ~
r f~,.rm-'~ 1~
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
BY ~.dq' y~
Deputy S~iff
Sworn and Subscribed to Before Me
This JJft:: Day of (},-t;:l...-
1994. A.D.C\.....,.._C../~.~'-
p;tot!honotary
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and subnitted in dup1icatel
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
please list the within matter for the next ~t Court.
------------------------------------------------------------------.--------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption IlUlt be stated in fulll
'"
~."
:z:
~
TARA M. HARVEY,
( Plaintiff)
t.. ,
~~;; ..
'n J' ~~ '.)
l<U;;r.."'1 &on
;o.,~o":J -'
;r."~1 Z ~ -0
J;~':: ~~~ I" :;II:
:.e,.
...",
......,
w
-
VB.
GROFF TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT
INC., KENNETH R. GROFF and
JEAN BROWN,
~
(Defendant I
No. ~L-- CivUAction Law 1994
1. State matter to be argued (i.e.. plaintiff's motion for new trial. defendant's
deturrer to canplaint. etc.):
Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Complaint
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
for pLUntiff: James A. Johnson, Esquire - Joseph C. Hitchings,
~s: Johnson. Duffie, Stewart & Weidner Esquire
301 Market Street, P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0l09
for def~t:Vincent CandiellD, Esquire
~s: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
One Commerce Square, 417 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, PA l7l0l-l904
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has
been listed for argunent.
(al
(bl
4. Argunent Court Date: Decembel." 7, 1994
--Ip~/J&u4
Dated:
Attorney for
De fendan ts
-.:r
~
'C>-
:E:
c;....
,.....
,....,
._,"
<t;.
<.>
"oJ
=
"
r.. .-,.
TARA tI. HARVEY,
Plllntlff
IN THE COURT OF COtltlON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
F.;9.0
NO. 94-5594 CIVIL TERti
v.
6ROff TRACTOR & EQUIPtlENT,
INC., KEKIIETH R. 6ROFF AND
JEAN DROWN,
CIVIL ACTION LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendlnts
PRAECIPE FOR SUDSTITUTICN OF COUNSEL
TO THE PROTHONOT ARV:
Kindly note the wlthdrewll of Joseph L. Hitchings, EsquIre, Ind Johnson,
Duffle, Stewart &. Weidner, es cOlllsel for the Plelnttff, end enter the appellnlnce of
Olrrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire, IS her attorney.
Respectfully SLtlmltted,
J ph L. HItchings, EsquIre
ohllSon. Duff1e, Stewert &. Weidner
30 I Market Street
Lemoyne. PA 17043
(717) 761-4540
--')
Olrrell C. Oethle s, Esqull1l
Attorney lit LlIw
Wegner <ldlng - SUI te 205
355 North 2 I st Street
ClImpHlII,PA 17011
(717) 975-9446
TARA M. HARVEY,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
GROFF TRACTOR &
EQUIPMENT, INC.,
KENNETH R. GROFF and
JEAN BROWN,
DEFENDANTS
94-5592 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF ALL
DEFf;NDA~~ TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPl.,&\INI
BEFORE BAYLEY. J. AND HESS. J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 1b day of January, 1995, the complaint of plaintiff against
ail defendants, IS DISMISSED.
. Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire - t"'~-f<-"'.A...":"- -t,.L l,:"f. :r.f-..t4t II.J.~/f~
~~~ ijU ~
VincentCandiello, Esquire _ C:tl-t.'/' r>>~~Q-<C I/.J.",(~!i
For Defendants A .J,
94-5592 CIVIL TERM
Jean Brown, for time on Friday for an appointment with her therapist, as was the
normal practice. Plaintiff alleges that Brown became "Irate with her and demanded
that she schedule her appointments outside normal working hours as she was
mlsslnn too much time from work." Prior to February 10, Brown had never advised
plaintiff that she was missing too much time from work for her appointments, and was
very accommodating to plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Brown knew or should have
known that her statement and actions caused plaintiff "great emotional upset
especially In light of the Plaintiff's known mental health history." As a result, "Plaintiff
suffered severe emotional distress, anguish and humiliation which led her to attempt
a suicide on the premises of Groff Traclor & Equipment, Inc., by taking an overdose
of pills." Plaintiff seeks an award of "expenses" In "securing medical and psychiatric
treatment In an effort to cure herself of her injuries." Plaintiff also avers that she "has
been and in the future may be prevented from attending to her usual and customary
occupation and duties to her financial detriment and loss."
Defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint. Citing Shaffer v.
Procter & Gamble, 412 Pa. Super. 630 (1992), they maintain that plaintiff's claims for
intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred by the exclusivity provision of the
Workmen's Compensation Act. 77 P.S. ~ 481 (a). We disagree because plaintiff, as
In Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., Inc., 530 Pa. 11 (1992), "Is not seeking
compensation for [a] work-related injury Itself In this action." See also Schweitzer v.
Rockwell International, 402 Pa. Super. 34 (1990); Baker v. Rite Aid CorporaUon,
-2-
94-5592 CIVIL TERM
In Hackney v. Woodring, 424 Pa Super. 96 (1993), the Superior Court,
referring to the tort of Intentional infliction of emotional distress, stated:
Uablllty will be 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. Restatement (Second) of Torts, g
46 comment d. 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'"
Id.
The Superior Court also statsd In Hackney that, "It Is for the court to
determine, In the first Instance. whether the defendant's conduct may reasonably be
regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery. Restatement
(Second) of Torts g 46 comment h." In the case sub ludice, rather than saying
'outrageous," we suspect that the average member of the community, upon hearing
plaintiff's claim against her employer and Its employees, would wonder what the legal
world Is coming to. We conclude that plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which she
can recover. As averred, plaintiff's employer had been accommodating her for more
than a year by allowing time off from work, to be made up later, In order for plaintiff
to attend therapy necessitated by her attempted suicide In January, 1993. In
February, 1994, plaintiff's employer, on one dav's notice by plaintiff requesting more
time off, became, "irate with plaintiff and demanded that she schedule her
appointments outside normal working hours as she was missing too much time from
work." While that may have been inconsiderate and unkind, in order to accept
plaintiff's position, a jury would have to conclude that she had secured a vested right
I'
-4-