Sarah Joan Watson v. Bobby Dixon and Duke University

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Retention, Assault - Plaintiff and Dixon were both employed with Duke in the Sterile Processing of the Medical Center, when Watson alleged that she began to experience difficulty with Dixon's harassing behavior. She claimed Dixon's behavior consisted of crank telephone calls, rubbing his body against Watson, touching her breasts, confining Watson to a room against her will, drawing a picture of Watson depicting with a penis, making obscene comments about her, scaring Watson in an area where rapes had occurred, and making scary comments about her long drive home on dark roadways. This conduct continued for about seven or eight months (from approximately August 1991 to late March 1992), during which plaintiff experienced bouts of crying, vomiting, and inability to sleep, until finally suffering a nervous breakdown. As a result, plaintiff has been diagnosed with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Dixon had a reputation amongst the Sterile Department management as one who joked and played around a lot, and intimidated new employees. However, Duke had never taken any serious disciplinary action to address this problem. When Dixon began to harass plaintiff, she reported his behavior to her supervisor, Eunice Haskins Turrentine, the Assistant Director of Sterile Processing, Vickie Barnette, Employee Relations Representative, Oscar Rouse, and Duke Police Officer Sarah Minnis. However, little if anything was done about Dixon's harassing behavior until around 20 March 1992, when Bill Dennis, Director of Material Management, spoke with Dixon about his reported behavior, and separated plaintiff and Dixon in the work environment. Plaintiff was thereafter transferred to first shift, a low stress position, but after less than a week in her new position, plaintiff went out of work on leave and did not return to work until 1 June 1992, and worked part-time until mid- July 1992, when she returned to work full-time. Plaintiff and Dixon both were still employed with Duke at the time of trial. Dixon contended that he had not intentionally harassed Watson, and Duke maintained that the university had responded as best it could in light of the circumstances. Many of Duke's personnel deny receiving reports of Dixon's behavior, or testified that Watson told them that she wanted to keep her complaints confidential. Plaintiff alleged claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, negligent retention and assault. Plaintiff's claims against Duke for assault, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, as well as plaintiff's claim against Dixon for negligent infliction of emotional distress, were dismissed. Plaintiff's remaining claims against Duke for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention, and against Dixon for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, were tried by jury.

Plaintiff's Verdict - the jury determined that Dixon was not liable for an assault on Watson, and that Duke was not liable for the negligent retention of Dixon. The jury did find, however, (1) that Dixon was liable for the battery of Watson and awarded her $100 in compensatory damages; and (2) that Dixon was liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress and that Duke had ratified Dixon's actions in inflicting this emotional distress, and awarded Watson compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000, and punitive damages in the amount of $5,000 from Dixon and $500,000 from Duke.

Unknown

Unknown

Defendant's motions for j.n.o.v. or new trial or remittitur of damages were denied by the trial court. Affirmed by the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. See 511 S.E.2d 37 (N.C.App. 1999). Reported by C.H.