Tort/Negligence — Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Interference with Prospective Advantage – Neighbors’ Harassment

Radcliffe v. Avenel Homeowners Association, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-258-16, 49 pp.) (Mark Davis, J.) Appealed from New Hanover County Superior Court (D. Jack Hooks Jr., J.) N.C. App.

Holding: Where plaintiff alleges that several of her neighbors heaped upon her a barrage of abuse, harassment, threats, scorn, and derision, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the “extreme and outrageous” conduct element of a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s partial grant of defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Plaintiff alleges that her defendant-neighbors were verbally and even physically abusive towards her, filed false criminal charges against her, and interfered with her prospective employment with two different employers.

Barred Claims

In a previous federal lawsuit, the court dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims and declined to rule on her state claims. The statutes of limitations as to the state claims that plaintiff alleged in her federal lawsuit were tolled during the pendency of the federal lawsuit; however, the state claims that plaintiff did not allege in her federal lawsuit are time-barred.

The continuing wrong doctrine does not apply to save such claims because plaintiff was not subjected to (1) a longstanding policy of discrimination or (2) a continually recurring violation within the meaning of Birtha v. Stonemor, N.C., LLC, 220 N.C. App. 286, 727 S.E.2d 1 (2012).

Collateral estoppel bars plaintiff’s claims under G.S. § 99D-1 (conspiracy to violate one’s constitutional rights because of race, religion, ethnicity or gender) since those claims are based on the same facts and circumstances that were before the federal court in its consideration of her Fair Housing Act claims, which the federal court decided adversely to her.

Emotional Distress Claims

Plaintiff has alleged that defendants perpetuated a prolonged multi-year campaign of harassment, threats, and abuse that grossly exceeded the bounds of propriety. Although some of her allegations of insults and indignities would not by themselves rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct necessary for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, her allegations – when considered in their entirety – assert not merely isolated insults but rather unrelenting abuse that involved her being beaten, physically restrained, threatened, and subjected to extraordinarily vulgar and offensive comments.

Plaintiff has satisfied the pleading requirements for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Her allegations describe a prolonged exposure to intolerable conduct that no human being should be forced to endure.

However, where the complaint repeatedly references a pattern of intentional conduct by defendants, plaintiff has not stated a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

Plaintiff, a graduate of Yale Divinity School, claims tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (TIPEA), based on her allegations that defendants interfered with her job opportunities with the United Methodist Church and the Boys and Girls Home.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants wrote libelous materials against her and sent them to church officials in order to get the officials to revoke plaintiff’s ordination candidate certification, which was a requirement of her employment with the church. Plaintiff alleges that the decision to revoke her certification was also based on the false criminal charges filed against her by defendants. She also alleges that defendants deliberately caused her to suffer emotional distress severe enough to preclude her ordination.

The complaint further alleges that, but for defendants’ tortious interference, plaintiff and the church would have entered into a contract and that defendants acted without justification. Plaintiff alleges damages from the loss of employment opportunity.

These allegations satisfy the pleading requirements for a TIPEA claim with respect to plaintiff’s prospective employment with the United Methodist Church.

However, with respect to plaintiff’s prospective employment with the Boys and Girls Home, the complaint does not contend that the false criminal charges against her were taken out for the specific purpose of thwarting her chances of obtaining employment with the Boys and Girls Home. Thus, plaintiff’s TIPEA claim fails with respect to her prospective employment with the Boys and Girls Home.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.