Thelaw Case Study

Mr. Thelaw’s conduct would likely be considered extreme and outrageous when he manipulated Ms. Smartpants emotions in front of the class. Courts have reasoned that a defendant cannot deliberately attempt to manipulate the emotions of a plaintiff, for a perceived advantage over a plaintiff who is susceptible to emotional distress. KOVR-TV, Inc., 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 435; McDaniel, 281 Cal. Rptr. 246. In KOVR-TV, a news anchor informed children under the age of 12 about their neighbor killing their three children, who were friends of the plaintiffs, to elicit emotions for “newsworthy” broadcast journalism. KOVR-TV, Inc., 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 432-33. The court in this case found that behavior to be extreme, as the defendant should have known that

Thelaw, has similar authority as he can pass or fail Ms. Smartpants affecting her course grade at the school. See Id. at 373. ; see also Yurick, 257 Cal. Rptr. at 672-71. Similar to McDaniel, where the lawyer failed to provide adequate legal services to the plaintiff, which in turn affected the plaintiff’s interest, Mr. Thelaw threatening to fail Ms. Smartpants based on her class participation affects her interest at school. McDaniel, 281 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 373. Therefore, Mr. Thelaw’s conduct would likely be considered an abuse of authority. Id. at 373. Unlike Yurick, where the employee could not pinpoint exact circumstances where the Supervisor’s conduct had an impact on the employee’s work interest, Ms. Smartpants is able to pinpoint exact circumstances that show Mr. Thelaw’s ability to affect her interest at school. See Yurick, 257 Cal. Rptr. at 672. Mr. Thelaw called Ms. Smartpants on her home phone threating to flunk her for lack of class participation, thus directly impacting her interest at school through her grade and advancement through law school. See Id. at

Thelaw has on several occasions made insulting comments in front of the class when Ms. Smartpants answered questions. See Id. at 671. The employee in Yurick stated that the Supervisors negative comments were not as bad as what he would normally say as opposed to Ms. Smartpants who has identified specific negative comments about her age and her inability to answer questions correctly in front of the class. See Id. at 672. Therefore, Mr. Thelaw’s behavior would likely be considered offensive. See Id. at 670. Since Mr. Thelaw does not react the same way toward other students who respond to his questions in class, one could conclude that the language he uses toward Ms. Smartpants is not indicative of his normal classroom behavior, contrasting to Yurick, where the court concluded that the Supervisors’ language was considered normal to the work environment. See Id. at 671-672. Thus, Mr. Thelaw’s behavior would likely be considered extreme and outrageous. See Id. at