Expelled Students Sues Private School for Emotional Distress

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

The school moved to strike student's action which alleged negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, unfair trade practices, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of economic loss. In order to maintain a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the student must plead and establish that the defendant should have realized that its conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and that that distress, if it were caused, might result in illness or bodily harm. There are four elements to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress: (1) that the school intended to inflict emotional distress, or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was a likely result of his conduct, (2) that the conduct was extreme and outrageous, (3) that the school’s conduct was the cause of the student's distress, and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the student was severe. Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct exceeding all bounds usually tolerated by decent society, of a nature that is especially calculated to cause, and does cause, mental distress of a very serious nature. Whether the school’s conduct was extreme and outrageous is a question, in the first instance, for the court. Only when reasonable minds can differ does it become an issue for the jury

Student was expelled from defendant school in his senior year. He was readmitted on conditions contained in an agreement. When student did not abide by the conditions, he was again expelled. Student claimed defendant knew or should have known the conditions would not be honored by its officials which would deceive student to his detriment. Student's claim that the school did not timely notify student's family of his behavior implicated the exercise of professional judgment in the educational context. A claim that the school negligently exercised such judgment could not be maintained. The allegation that the school allowed student back shortly before the end of his senior year, under terms that it knew its officials would not honor, could have been construed by a jury as conduct that exceeded the bounds tolerated by a decent society.

The court denied motion to strike negligent misrepresentation claim since negligent education was not part of claim, and denied motion to strike intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, since a jury could conclude defendant school's conduct was outrageous. The court granted motion to strike negligent infliction of emotional distress, unfair trade practices, and negligent infliction of economic loss claims. “As discussed above, the allegation here is that [the school] agreed to allow [the student] back into school a few months before the end of his senior year under terms that it knew its officials would not honor and who, in fact, did not honor” said the court. “Whether [the student] can actually prove this claim is another matter, but for purposes of a motion to strike the court must take the allegation to be true. A jury might construe that conduct to exceed the bounds tolerated by a decent society and evidence an intent to cause injury.”

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Dietz v. Hamden Hall Country Day Sch., 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1972, 2000 WL 1198010 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 25, 2000)