Two recent Superior Court of Connecticut cases highlight a change in the way Connecticut is addressing claims of on-the-job negligent infliction of emotional distress. Historically, although Connecticut has recognized claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress, such claims have been limited to emotional distress inflicted during the termination process. See e.g., Morris v. Hartford Courant Co., 200 Conn. 676, 682 (1986); Parsons v. United Technologies Corp., 243 Conn. 66 (1997). In other words, Connecticut courts “focus[ed] on the manner of the discharge; whether the employer’s conduct in the termination was unreasonable, not whether the termination itself was unreasonable.” Lopez-Salerno v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 3:97CV273 (AHN), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19724, at * 17 (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 1997).

In 2005, however, the Appellate Court of Connecticut’s decisions in Davis v. Manchester Health Ctr., Inc., 88 Conn. App. 60 (2005) and Olson v. Bristol-Burlington Health Dist., 87 Conn. App. 1 (2005) suggested a change in the legal landscape. In 2007, the Superior Courts of Connecticut have begun to map out application of the new standards. In Dichello v. Marlin Firearms Co., No. CV065002796S, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 223 (Conn. Super. Ct., Jan. 22, 2007), an employee reported workplace sexual harassment, took a medical leave of absence, became pregnant and notified her employer that she would not return for ten months. Her employer then wrote her a letter terminating her employment. Although her administrative claim was dismissed, the Superior Court held that her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress withstood a motion to strike. The Court relied upon Davis, describing its obligation to “consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding an employee’s termination, rather than looking exclusively at the actual termination procedures.” Id. at *9. In other words, the Court described an obligation to assess the reason for termination.

In Kontos v. Laurel House, No. CV065001408S, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 225 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 17, 2007), an employer wrongfully accused a social worker of sexual harassment. The social worker had arguably mishandled a sexual harassment complaint initiated by a member of his staff after a number of unpleasant interactions with a client. Ultimately, the social worker himself was accused of sexual harassment as well. The Court relied upon Olson, denying a motion to strike the negligent infliction claim and holding that the false accusation provided a valid basis for the negligent infliction claim. Again, this holding looks to the reason for termination rather than the method of termination.

The tidy limits on negligent infliction claims are no longer. If the facts alleged by Dichello and Kontos present legitimate grounds for negligent infliction claims, any number of on-the-job circumstances could just as likely fit the bill. Employers should recognize this change and stay alert for new theories of – and new exposure to claims of – negligent infliction of emotional distress.