phenomenon of "workplace bullying" and the need for status-blind hostile work environment protection, The

Harris v. Jones,144 a 1977 Maryland Court of Appeals decision, is a compelling illustration of the difficulty of establishing severe emotional distress. Plaintiff Harris was an assembly-line worker who suffered from a lifelong stuttering problem that gave him "great difficulty with longer words or sentences, causing him at times to shake his head up and down when attempting to speak."145 Even before the complained-of behavior began at work, he had been under long-term care for a nervous condition.146 He also was experiencing difficulties in his marriage and had an apparent drinking problem.147

During a five-month period, Harris's supervisor, Jones, approached him over thirty times, verbally and physically mimicking his speech impediment.148 A few times a week during this time period, Jones would approach Harris and tell him, "in a 'smart manner,' not to get nervous."149 As a result of this behavior, "Harris was 'shaken up' and felt `like going into a hole and hide [sic].'"150 Harris's wife said that his nervous condition worsened during this time.151

When Harris tried to transfer departments, Jones refused to grant his request.152 When Harris sought the assistance of his union representative, Jones mimicked both Harris's "shaking his head up and down" and his stuttering. 153 In response to grievances filed by Harris, on two occasions the employer, General Motors, instructed Jones to act properly.154

At trial, the jury found for Harris, but the court of special appeals reversed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff's emotional distress lacked the requisite severity to allow recovery.155 The Maryland Court of Appeals then affirmed the court of special appeals's reversal of the verdict.156 While Harris claimed that Jones's conduct was cruel and insensitive, the court found that the humiliation suffered by Harris was not, "as a matter of law, so intense as to constitute the 'severe' emotional distress required to recover" for IIED.157 "The intensity and duration of Harris'[s] emotional distress is nowhere reflected in the evidence," the court wrote, adding that Harris's family problems "were not shown to be attributable to Jones'[s] actions" and it was not established "how, or to what degree, Harris'[s] speech impediment worsened" due to Jones's conduct.158

One could argue that, in view of the court's references to the quality of the plaintiffs evidence concerning severe emotional distress,159 Harris is simply a warning to plaintiffs" attorneys about the importance of putting on a complete case. But it is more reasonable to assert that this case illustrates just how severe a plaintiff's distress must be in order for a claim to survive judicial scrutiny at both the trial and appellate levels. Harris testified that he "'felt like going into a hole and hide [sic],'"160 and the appeals court quoted from comment j of the Restatement acknowledging that "in many cases the extreme and outrageous character of the defendant's conduct is in itself important evidence that the distress has existed." 161 The court still found that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law; to establish severe emotional distress. 162