Dear Mr.:
The conduct here is extreme and outrageous because it is indecent, atrocious, and intolerable. The conduct rule states that an issue has to be “extreme and outrageous” for a claim of deliberate infliction of emotional distress.Medcalf v. Walsh.The court, while applying this rule, will most likely hold that McMahon’s conduct towards Valenzuela was unjustified. McMahon vehemently attacked Valenzuela by encouraging another student, Hochman, to refer to Valenzuela as a “wetback” because he was Mexican. When Hochman attacked Valenzuela verbally, McMahon did not stop him but encouraged him recurrently asking Valenzuela how he felt about the attack. She increased her vigilance, insensitivity, and ignorance of Valenzuela’s feelings instead of minding her conduct. She, therefore, voluntarily put herself in a difficult position.
Extreme and outrageous conduct must surpass all possible bounds of decency be “atrocious,” and “utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”McMahon’s conduct is indecent; people in civilized community do not demean others because of their background or race. Conduct is defined as atrocious and intolerable when it meets three requirements. It must be prolonged, the defendant must bear intentions to cause harm or be ignorant whether the conduct will cause damage or harm, and the defendant must have knowledge that emotional distress will result from the conduct.Roach v. Stern.
McMahon’s conduct meets the requirement of the second element because she knew that Valenzuela was the only student with a Mexican origin in her class; thus, she knew that her conduct towards him would affect Valenzuela. McMahon also knew that other students taunted Valenzuela because of his race; during his first year in the school, Valenzuela dropped out of a cross-country race because his competitors made fun of him for being of Mexican origin. McMahon, told him to become tough because there were always such people in the world. The fact that McMahon was aware of Valenzuela’s history with other students teasing him about his origin represents deliberate infliction of emotional stress to the victim.
The “occasional use” of demeaning and derogatory remarks does not satisfy the requirement of the second element. Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. The third element can be supported where McMahon knew that the Valenzuela was“peculiarly susceptible” to emotional distress. Additionally, McMahon instructed Hochman to call Valenzuela a “wetback” in class, which he did. Valenzuela’s responded to McMahon’s question about how he felt being called a “wetback” by stating that he did not like it and that even McMahon knew he did not.
McMahon may argue that her intention was to help the class gain insight about her lesson. This, however,is unjustified given that she might have caused emotional distress on Valenzuela by using him as an example.McMahon may argue that she did not know that Valenzuela still felt demeaned when mocked about his ethnic origin, because she referred him to the school psychologist in his first year for the same problem. There is, however, no proof that Valenzuela spoke to the psychologist. The court, in Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co, clarified that the use of any racial, religious, or ethnic slur in reference to an individual must be condemned strongly. The use of demeaning remarks by McMahon during her class against Valenzuela was unreasonable. This behavior represents mean-spiritedness and small-mindedness.
Valenzuela is not like the plaintiff in the Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co case, who was intimidated continuously by her employer and colleagues because she was the only Jewish female in her department.The court in this case failed to recognize the plaintiff’s allegations as fitting to an “extreme and outrageous” conduct because her employer simply denied her promotions, and used religious slurs such as ‘Hebe’ and ‘Kike’ on her. The court did not find these references asa form of extreme and outrageous attacks. The court, therefore, dismissed the case on grounds that it did not fit an outrageous and deliberate conduct.Valenzuela’s case is different as McMahon deliberately inflicted torture upon the plaintiff in her class.
The presence of justifiable reliance in Valenzuela’s case is consistent with the public ideology. Justifiable reliance condemns the use of any religious or racial insults against an individual. A case, which involves deliberate infliction of mental anguish or distress upon an individual and any form of intimidation, requires a remedy. (See, Nader v. General Motors Corp). There was a causative link in Valenzuela’s case; McMahon knew about Valenzuela’s previous history with ethnic attacks prior to her attack in class. Valenzuela’s told McMahon about what he felt regarding the attack, to which she kept encouraging Hochman to call him a “wetback.” McMahon showed her knowledge about the consequences of such verbal attacks towards Valenzuela; during Valenzuela’s first year in school, she told him that the world was full of small-minded individuals, referring to those who taunted him because he was Mexican-American. This knowledge placed her in a worse situation. Finding for Valenzuela here is fair because he is a victim of discrimination. Finding that McMahon’s conduct was atrocious will benefit other individual’s in Valenzuela’s shoes in America. It will also serve a purpose of the requirements of law, against the discrimination and attack of individuals based on their race.
