No. 89-5346.United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.Argued January 23, 1990.
Decided March 30, 1990.
Page 537
Howell H. Sherrod, Jr. (argued), Sherrod, Stanley Goldstein, Johnson City, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant.
William T. Gamble (argued), Wilson, Worley, Gamble Ward, Kingsport, Tenn., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
Before WELLFORD and GUY, Circuit Judges, and ENGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.
RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge.
[1] Plaintiff, Walter Adams, appeals from a United States magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law denying the plaintiff’s claim against defendant, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX), for emotional injury under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq. Because we find that the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery under FELA for emotional injury on the facts of this case, we affirm.I.
[2] Plaintiff Adams began working for defendant CSX in 1978, and remained with the company until September 23, 1987, when he suffered an emotional breakdown. The plaintiff, universally described as a bright and industrious employee, served as a laborer throughout the course of his tenure with CSX. In addition, the plaintiff acted as a union chairman charged with handling all union matters regarding his trade.
Page 538
apparently extended his abusive behavior to all of his workers, the plaintiff was one of Peterson’s favorite targets.
[4] Despite sporadic exposure to Peterson’s supervisory style before March 1986, plaintiff Adams sought and obtained the position of relief laborer on the day shift knowing that the position would entail increased contact with Peterson. After a year of constant interaction with Peterson, the plaintiff exercised his seniority to “kick” a junior man from a job involving three days per week of contact with Peterson. Plaintiff Adams concedes he could have forced the junior man into that slot and taken the night shift, which would have completely removed him from Peterson’s control. Instead, the plaintiff chose to retain the position under Peterson’s authority until he left work on September 23, 1987. [5] While under Peterson’s control, the plaintiff was compelled to work extremely hard, but not beyond his physical capability.[2]At the same time, the plaintiff was going through an acrimonious divorce and its aftermath as well as a bankruptcy proceeding. Plaintiff Adams became increasingly despondent, and ultimately suffered an emotional breakdown on September 23, 1987. He was hospitalized for three weeks to treat his severe depression precipitated by the stresses of both his work and his personal life. Much of the depression that forced the plaintiff from his job still remains with him and precludes him from returning to the CSX facility in Erwin, Tennessee, where he worked.[3] [6] To redress the emotional injury allegedly resulting from his supervisor’s harassment, plaintiff Adams filed this FELA action against CSX claiming that the company negligently deprived him of an emotionally safe workplace.[4] The defendant moved for summary judgment, but the magistrate denied the motion. A six-day bench trial ensued, after which the magistrate entered findings of fact and conclusions of law resulting in the denial of the plaintiff’s FELA claim.[5] The magistrate specifically ruled that the plaintiff’s emotional injury was caused (at least in part) by Malone Peterson’s conduct, but Peterson’s conduct did not rise to an actionable level. The magistrate further concluded that the plaintiff’s emotional breakdown was not a foreseeable consequence of Peterson’s behavior. Plaintiff contests both of these findings on appeal, while defendant CSX argues that emotional injury is not compensable under FELA.
II.
[7] Section 1 of FELA, which controls this case, provides in pertinent part that a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce “shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier . . . for such injury … resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier[.]” 45 U.S.C. § 51. Although FELA liability is based upon negligence, the statute “does not define negligence, leaving that question to be
Page 539
determined . . . `by the common law principles as established and applied in the federal courts.'” Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 174, 69 S.Ct. 1018, 1026, 93 L.Ed. 1282 (1949) (citation omitted). This inquiry presents “a federal question, not varying in accordance with the differing conceptions of negligence applicable under state and local laws for other purposes.” Id.
[8] The application of FELA’s negligence standard to claims for purely emotional injury remains an unsettled matter. See, e.g., Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Ry. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 567-68, 107 S.Ct. 1410, 1417, 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987). In Adkins v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., 821 F.2d 340 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 963, 108 S.Ct. 452, 98 L.Ed.2d 392 (1987), we held that a “claim of an intentional tort resulting in a purely emotional injury is not cognizable under the FELA.” Id. at 342. Our refusal to recognize a FELA claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress stemmed from FELA’s restriction to actions based upon an employer’s negligence.[6] Id. at 341-42. We considered whether FELA can support a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim in Stoklosa v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 864 F.2d 425 (6th Cir. 1988), but we did not provide an answer to the question because we determined that an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim was missing.[7] Id. at 426. Likewise, in this case we need not decide whether such a cause of action exists under FELA because we find the plaintiff’s claim to be deficient in two respects. [9] To prevail on a FELA claim, a plaintiff must “prove the traditional common law elements of negligence: duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation.” Robert v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 832 F.2d 3, 6 (1st Cir. 1987). The magistrate found, and we agree, that defendant CSX clearly had a duty to provide a safe workplace for the plaintiff. We also agree with the magistrate’s conclusion that CSX’s action through Peterson played some part in causing the plaintiff’s emotional injury. Cy. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S.Ct. 443, 448, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957) (the causation test is whether “employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury” for which the plaintiff seeks recovery); Green v. River Terminal Ry., 763 F.2d 805, 806-07 (6th Cir. 1985) (reciting Rogerstest). The FELA claim in this case is fatally flawed, however, because the plaintiff failed to establish either a breach of the employer’s duty to provide an emotionally safe workplace or the foreseeability of his emotional injury. [10] The issue of whether defendant CSX breached its duty to provide plaintiff Adams with an emotionally safe workplace can be resolved by examining the Supreme Court’s conception of impermissible harassment under FELA. In Buell, the Court identified “unconscionable abuse” as “a prerequisite to recovery” for “purely emotional injury[.]” Buell, 480 U.S. at 567 n. 13, 107 S.Ct. at 1417 n. 13. The Fifth
Page 540
Circuit utilized this language to define the type of conduct that amounts to a breach of the employer’s duty to furnish an emotionally safe workplace. See Netto v. Amtrak, 863 F.2d 1210, 1215 (5th Cir. 1989). We similarly hold that an employer has not breached its duty to provide an emotionally safe workplace unless the employer (acting through its agents) engages in “unconscionable abuse” of an employee.[8] In this case, the evidence establishes that Peterson was extremely demanding and often abrasive, yet the plaintiff never lodged a complaint against him or opted to exercise his seniority to switch to a shift outside Peterson’s supervision. Moreover, the evidence unequivocally indicates that Peterson’s demands were related solely to job performance and were distributed evenly among all the workers under his direct supervision. While Peterson’s conduct may have been overbearing, we cannot say that the magistrate erred in finding that “unconscionable abuse” of plaintiff Adams did not occur.
[11] We also agree with the magistrate’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s emotional breakdown was not reasonably foreseeable to either CSX officials or to Peterson. We recognize that “`[t]he test of foreseeability does not require that the negligent person should have been able to foresee the inquiry in the precise form in which it in fact occurred.'” Green, 763 F.2d at 808(citation omitted). Nevertheless, we find that in this case, as in Stoklosa, the “[p]laintiff’s extreme reaction … could not reasonably be foreseen.” Stoklosa, 864 F.2d at 426. Peterson had worked in a supervisory capacity at CSX for many years prior to the plaintiff’s nervous breakdown, and the evidence clearly indicates that Peterson’s managerial style had not changed one iota over the years. The plaintiff never lodged any sort of complaint against Peterson (thereby depriving the company of notice that Peterson was causing the plaintiff stress) despite the plaintiff’s familiarity through his union activity with the grievance process. In addition, the plaintiff seemed content to work under Peterson’s supervision, thus suggesting to both Peterson and CSX officials that the employment relationship was at least tolerable. Consequently, the evidence supports the magistrate’s conclusion that the defendant could not have foreseen the plaintiff’s nervous breakdown precipitated (at least in part) by the day-to-day interaction between Adams and Peterson in the workplace. Because “reasonable foreseeability of harm is an essential ingredient of Federal Employers’ Liability Act negligence,” Gallick v. Baltimore Ohio R.R., 372 U.S. 108, 117, 83 S.Ct. 659, 665, 9 L.Ed.2d 618 (1963); accord Green, 763 F.2d at 808 (quoting Gallick), the magistrate properly entered judgment for defendant CSX based upon the absence of reasonable foreseeability in this case. [12] AFFIRMED.
The evidence was uncontradicted that Malone Peterson often spoke in a loud voice when addressing his employees, including the plaintiff; that it was very difficult to tell whether Malone Peterson was joking or was serious when communicating with his employees; and that his demeanor was sometimes interpreted as “hateful[.”] The undersigned also finds that Malone Peterson told the plaintiff to “get your damned ass to work[,”] and on one occasion told the plaintiff that he would tie a toilet to the plaintiff so that he might keep working and not ever leave his work to visit the bathroom. The undersigned also finds that Peterson sometimes referred to the plaintiff as “my nigger” [the plaintiff is white] and used other somewhat “salty” language.