Beyond Traditional Tort Law, ‘Desk Rage’ is Now a Potential Claim

[gemini 0]

Although not recognized as a cause of action in most jurisdictions, "desk rage"—i.e., abusive or threatening conduct at the workplace—is a growing problem and a growing concern to employers and the lawyers who advise them.

At its worst, the occupational violence that can result from stressed and angry employees facing increasing pressures in a difficult economy can be deadly. But even when the problem is relatively minimal, it can result in reduced productivity and increased attrition, according to a New York Law Journal article reprinted by New York Lawyer (reg. req.).

At the forefront of avant-garde jurisdictions recognizing such conduct as potentially actionable, the Indiana Supreme Court held earlier this year in Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 709l, that "workplace bullying" can create a valid basis for an employee to sue an employer, the article reports. The court ratified a $325,000 award to a hospital technician whose supervising surgeon, who had a history as a "workplace abuser," confronted him with "[clenched fists, piercing eyes, beet-red face [and] popping veins]."

"The court's opinion may provide plaintiffs an additional opportunity to pursue claims beyond traditional harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act," the article notes.

Blue skies,

Jim

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Although not recognized as a cause of action in most jurisdictions, "desk rage"—i.e., abusive or threatening conduct at the workplace—is a growing problem and a growing concern to employers and the lawyers who advise them.

At its worst, the occupational violence that can result from stressed and angry employees facing increasing pressures in a difficult economy can be deadly. But even when the problem is relatively minimal, it can result in reduced productivity and increased attrition, according to a New York Law Journal article reprinted by New York Lawyer (reg. req.).

At the forefront of avant-garde jurisdictions recognizing such conduct as potentially actionable, the Indiana Supreme Court held earlier this year in Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 709l, that "workplace bullying" can create a valid basis for an employee to sue an employer, the article reports. The court ratified a $325,000 award to a hospital technician whose supervising surgeon, who had a history as a "workplace abuser," confronted him with "[clenched fists, piercing eyes, beet-red face [and] popping veins]."

"The court's opinion may provide plaintiffs an additional opportunity to pursue claims beyond traditional harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act," the article notes.

Sounds good to me, the employer has a duty to ensure a safe work environment. Now if there was no warning of the harassment, there is no negligence, but if the employer is aware of it and does nothing then he/she should be liable.

[quade 4]

It would be interesting to know where the line is drawn.

Notice that in the example given, no punches were thrown and it was the observations of what appears to be one guy; two of which are completely subjective. I personally don't know what exactly constitutes "piercing eyes" or a "beet-red face". I know what "clenched fists" are, but I'm nearly certain the guy didn't actually have "popping" veins.

The gist I'm getting is that it's no longer acceptable to be anything but a smiling, happy co-worker, no matter what happens.

That's bullshit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Butters 0]

You best be careful 'cause I'm a cubicle gangsta!

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It would be interesting to know where the line is drawn.

Notice that in the example given, no punches were thrown and it was the observations of what appears to be one guy; two of which are completely subjective. I personally don't know what exactly constitutes "piercing eyes" or a "beet-red face". I know what "clenched fists" are, but I'm nearly certain the guy didn't actually have "popping" veins.

The gist I'm getting is that it's no longer acceptable to be anything but a smiling, happy co-worker, no matter what happens.

That's bullshit.

Truth is we don't know all the nuances of this suit. We really can't draw anything but an abstract inference here. Negligence is negligence and if a bully is in the workplace, we've all seen em, then the boss has to fix it including firing the SOB, even if it's his buddy. I think we're all looking for frivality as in the McDonald's hot cofeee suit, which settled for a fraction of the oroginal judgment. What do you do if the boss ignores a bully that is making your life hell? WHat do you do if that bully is the boss? Working isn;t an option, it's a requirement, so since it is that then we need to ensure fair play. The more we empower employers and disempower workers the more we enjoy the kind of BS this admin has brought us in 8 years. Yes, there is hypersensitivity, but there is also apathy; let's find fair.

[billvon 3,073]

>Sounds good to me, the employer has a duty to ensure a safe work environment.

Agreed - but he is under no obligation to ensure a happy work environment.

If the technician had been injured, or injury was likely, then by all means, take action against the doctor or employer. But seeing someone angry does not result in injury, and thus does not require action.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Sounds good to me, the employer has a duty to ensure a safe work environment.

Agreed - but he is under no obligation to ensure a happy work environment.

If the technician had been injured, or injury was likely, then by all means, take action against the doctor or employer. But seeing someone angry does not result in injury, and thus does not require action.

Sure, not that the employee is happy, but that they don't feel threatened, outed, etc. and I think that's more of what happened here. I've been near these sutuations and they get ugly. I think the courts are being a little hypersensitive due to the workplace and other shootings.

[billvon 3,073]

>Sure, not that the employee is happy, but that they don't feel threatened, outed, etc.

?? Some employees NEED to be threatened with disciplinary action, loss of salary, even firing. Heck, commercial pilots need to understand very clearly that an error could result in their deaths, and that threat is always there. You can't use the angle "employees must never feel threatened." Imagine a commercial pilot suing their employer because they feel scared when they fly at night in bad weather, and the chief pilot told them that was a dangerous combination if they're careless.

[Butters 0]

You threatening me? I'm a cubicle gangsta. I throw caution to the wind and roll sans pocket protector ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Notice that in the example given, no punches were thrown and it was the observations of what appears to be one guy; two of which are completely subjective. I personally don't know what exactly constitutes "piercing eyes" or a "beet-red face". I know what "clenched fists" are, but I'm nearly certain the guy didn't actually have "popping" veins.

The gist I'm getting is that it's no longer acceptable to be anything but a smiling, happy co-worker, no matter what happens.

Quite the binary world you live in. Guess that makes canopy choice easy - I'll take the black one!

when it gets to the point described vaguely above, it's not subtle. It's not just one person 'feeling threatened.' Everyone around sees this behavior and wonders if the guy is going to snap. And that's where managers/HR earn their keep. They're supposed to talk with the person privately and see if there is cause for concern. And if so, send the guy home, be it for the day, or forever.

We had a person like this in our group earlier in the year. He didn't take to technical debate well, took disagreement very personally. Fortunately, before we had to make a call on making an issue out of it, he abruptly gave notice and quit the same day.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Threatned for their personal safety and threatned by the consequences of failure are generally two different things.

If I pick the wrong valve for my waste water plant that I am working on, I feel threatned that bad things would happen to said plant- literally crap everywhere. And I would get in deep dookie with the state, licensing board, etc.

I should not feel threatned that my boss would clock me over the head for it, which appears to be what is happening in the OP's case.

[livendive 8]

Quote

>Sounds good to me, the employer has a duty to ensure a safe work environment.

Agreed - but he is under no obligation to ensure a happy work environment.

If the technician had been injured, or injury was likely, then by all means, take action against the doctor or employer. But seeing someone angry does not result in injury, and thus does not require action.

This sounds like our approach to television. A sexually hostile work environment is illegal, but a perceived threat of violence is just fine?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Butters 0]

This hacked iPhone I'm packing isn't a perceived threat, it's a real threat from a real cubicle gangsta.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,073]

>but a perceived threat of violence is just fine?

Correct. An ACTUAL threat of violence is not OK. That would be "I'm going to kill you tomorrow.' A PERCEIVED threat of violence is OK. That would be "his veins are popping and that makes me afraid."

[livendive 8]

Quote

>but a perceived threat of violence is just fine?

Correct. An ACTUAL threat of violence is not OK. That would be "I'm going to kill you tomorrow.' A PERCEIVED threat of violence is OK. That would be "his veins are popping and that makes me afraid."

What's the difference between that and, "He's staring at my ass and that makes me uncomfortable"?

And is the above punctuation incorrect because the question mark is supposed to go inside the closing quotation mark, even though the quotation is not the question being asked?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,073]

>What's the difference between that and, "He's staring at my ass and that
>makes me uncomfortable"?

No difference. If a woman thinks a man is looking at her ass and he's not, then no action should be taken. Even if she thinks he is.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Sure, not that the employee is happy, but that they don't feel threatened, outed, etc.

?? Some employees NEED to be threatened with disciplinary action, loss of salary, even firing. Heck, commercial pilots need to understand very clearly that an error could result in their deaths, and that threat is always there. You can't use the angle "employees must never feel threatened." Imagine a commercial pilot suing their employer because they feel scared when they fly at night in bad weather, and the chief pilot told them that was a dangerous combination if they're careless.

This is the age-old argument between workers rights vs employer responsibilities. You seem to need to trivialize my arguments to make your point. I'm not talking about the break room not having warm muffins every break, I'm talking about obvious harassment. I had a case at work where this big MF came in there, buddied with me and everyone, then once he had a stronghold he became a monster and divided the clique and annointed himself as the leader. People followed. I was outed, essentially told I couldn't play dominos at break, the company had a softball team, got everyone to strongly infer that I was not to play, etc.

At first, management loved him and encouraged his crap to divide, they gave him privs, etc... As an aside, his premise was Jebus and that was one form of division. Anywho, they then saw the monster they created, the one who went to the bar with them and rubbed elbows. So they took their first chance to ax his sorry ass and did so in short order. THESE ARE THE KINDS OF CASES THE COURT WANTS TO DISSUADE, not the ones where the room temp is not exactly right, as you might refer.

See, I had choices and in the old days I would have acted stupidly, now I just bought my time and waited and sure as hell, he imploded. When management decided to off their mess, they went searching and found that another co-worker, his buddy had screwed some chick and announced that she had a smelly pussy. That was 1 1/2 months before they needed him to be gone, so they dug in the archives and then did zero to the guy that then worked with management to disclose what he had said; he kept his job even tho he was the original source. In fact, that girl worked at the same place, so they encouraged her to complain, she did, that was all she wrote.

After his ouster, management kind of apologized to me and others ousted by being really nice. The other guys who acted like ass, some of my friends b4 that crap, tried to apologize and of course I just gave them blank stares and then they acted offended. So if I were a nut I might have gone postal or done something rash, this is the stuff the court wants to dissuade and civil liability works great.

Again, worker vs employer and we're on opposite sides. Isn't it great to live in such a Nazi fucking nation that our very management divides us...hell, they can't control us unless they do, they get us to cross picket lines, roll on each other.....yet those icky Socialized nations don't behave that way.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Notice that in the example given, no punches were thrown and it was the observations of what appears to be one guy; two of which are completely subjective. I personally don't know what exactly constitutes "piercing eyes" or a "beet-red face". I know what "clenched fists" are, but I'm nearly certain the guy didn't actually have "popping" veins.

The gist I'm getting is that it's no longer acceptable to be anything but a smiling, happy co-worker, no matter what happens.

Quite the binary world you live in. Guess that makes canopy choice easy - I'll take the black one!

when it gets to the point described vaguely above, it's not subtle. It's not just one person 'feeling threatened.' Everyone around sees this behavior and wonders if the guy is going to snap. And that's where managers/HR earn their keep. They're supposed to talk with the person privately and see if there is cause for concern. And if so, send the guy home, be it for the day, or forever.

We had a person like this in our group earlier in the year. He didn't take to technical debate well, took disagreement very personally. Fortunately, before we had to make a call on making an issue out of it, he abruptly gave notice and quit the same day.

Exactly, thank you.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>but a perceived threat of violence is just fine?

Correct. An ACTUAL threat of violence is not OK. That would be "I'm going to kill you tomorrow.' A PERCEIVED threat of violence is OK. That would be "his veins are popping and that makes me afraid."

How about some big cocksucker going into your workplace and turning most everyone against you? I never felt threatened, not a bit, but very outed. He used his size as fodder for intimidation, but never actualy made you think he would use it. He was a bully.

Oh, I forgot to mention, he had been fired for intimidating an HR girl a few years prior, same coe of management, the company had changed name. So 2 firings in ~3 years for the same kind of shit, Bill, this is what the court is talking about. You don't have to thrteaten someone to create hostility. I'm really surprised that you can't see that, you're a pretty dynamic thinker. Perhaps you have never seen it. I am not a small or passive guy, so I would normally react with the same idiocy..... but then I've been THAT GUY before too, so maybe I've just grown up..... I hate to admit

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

The gist I'm getting is that it's no longer acceptable to be anything but a smiling, happy co-worker, no matter what happens.

That's bullshit.

You will shut up, take your pills, and get in line like everyone else, and you'll like it mister.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[tbrown 26]

This is going to be a workers' paradise for the "process abusers", who run to the EEO inquisition committee with every imagined slight by someone they think is picking on them. I once knew of one little asshole at Boeing who actually ratted a woman to EEO because she had a 6 inch statue of Godzilla on her desk. It "insulted" the little cocksucker's "Japanese heritage". Rather than telling him to knock it the fuck off and get back to work, they told HER to take Godzilla home or face disciplinary action.

Nowadays, I suppose the little shit could actually extort a living out of her, except she quit Boeing and found a job that made her happy instead.

Maybe this is why the founding fathers wanted us to own guns ?

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This is going to be a workers' paradise for the "process abusers", who run to the EEO inquisition committee with every imagined slight by someone they think is picking on them. I once knew of one little asshole at Boeing who actually ratted a woman to EEO because she had a 6 inch statue of Godzilla on her desk. It "insulted" the little cocksucker's "Japanese heritage". Rather than telling him to knock it the fuck off and get back to work, they told HER to take Godzilla home or face disciplinary action.

Nowadays, I suppose the little shit could actually extort a living out of her, except she quit Boeing and found a job that made her happy instead.

Maybe this is why the founding fathers wanted us to own guns ?

That's an obscure example and one that we can all agree is BS. No one commented on my situation.....hmmmmm, doesn't fit the mold of frivality(sp)?

American workers have fewer rights than most/all other industrialized nations and yet we want to revoke more? NIIIIIIIIIIICE.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe this is why the founding fathers wanted us to own guns ?

They also wanted us to own slaves, so let's keep it real in regard to those little criminals.

[lawrocket 3]

I will have to ask my lawyer for a comment about this. This is interesting.

Thank you!

p.s. - yes, I have a whole bunch of lawyers to advise me on things that I know nothing about. I'm EXTREMELY happy that I outsourced HR.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,073]

>How about some big cocksucker going into your workplace and turning
>most everyone against you?

That's life. He might be a brilliant CEO and you might be deadweight - in which case he is doing what is best for the business. Or he might be an idiot and you might be brilliant, in which case his actions are a mistake.

>You don't have to thrteaten someone to create hostility.

Agreed 100%. But you shouldn't get fired because you're a hostile sort of guy. That's up to the company, not the government.