Help Is on the Way: A Recent Case Sheds Light on Workplace Bullying

Bob works at a bank and has done so for over a decade. A productive worker, Bob received outstanding efficiency reports. When Bob's supervisor retired, someone from outside the bank was hired. Suddenly Bob's work was not good enough. Every task he completed was deemed unsatisfactory. The new boss regularly berated Bob, often profanely and in front of other employees. Sometimes, his boss would give Bob exact instructions for completing a task, which Bob would follow. Yet, invariably, Bob's boss would deny ever giving instructions and would begin questioning Bob's intelligence. As the months passed, things got worse, and Bob's coworkers began distancing themselves from him. Some even took to criticizing Bob for everything from his job performance to his personal appearance in an effort to ingratiate themselves with the boss. Bob began to question his own abilities and wonder why he was not strong enough to defend himself. Weekends became a constant stress as Bob dreaded the coming week, often vomiting repeatedly. While at home, he alternately lashed out at and withdrew from his family. Bob began to suffer from health problems, such as high blood pressure, ulcers, and weight loss. Eventually, after his family left him and he suffered a mental breakdown, Bob was committed to a mental institution. Bob was a victim of what is called workplace bullying. While individual experiences may differ, a pattern of behavior emerges when experiences are compared. Workplace bullying consists of repeated hostile behavior designed to empower the bully at the expense of the victim. Many victims of bullying suffer psychological damage similar to post-traumatic stress disorder. Because workplace bullying results in lower productivity and higher rates of turnover, it costs companies millions of dollars each year. Attempting to prevent these negative effects, many countries have passed legislation outlawing workplace bullying. France and Sweden have explicitly made workplace bullying illegal, while Germany has developed a common law-like approach. England uses its Protection from Harassment Act to combat workplace bullying, an effort that recently resulted in a large verdict against Deutsche-Bank. Two Canadian provinces also have legislation on the subject, and commentators in Australia and New Zealand have begun recognizing the problem of bullying in the workplace. Meanwhile, in the United States, many view such legislation as overly paternalistic. Some critics of workplace bullying legislation believe statutory and common law causes of action already in place, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), are sufficient protection for workers. However, in recent years, scholars and commentators have been pushing for new causes of action and legislation. Professor David Yamada, the leading expert on legal responses to bullying in the United States, proposed a Healthy Workplace Bill designed to punish workplace bullies and the employers who tolerate or encourage them. So far this bill has been considered in thirteen states, all of which have rejected it. Nevertheless, some companies have recognized the problem and developed their own policies against workplace bullying. Despite the lack of a workplace bullying tort in the United States, the Indiana Supreme Court recently allowed testimony on workplace bullying in _Raess v. Doescher_. This marks the first time a U.S. court has made significant mention of workplace bullying, and the court suggested in dicta that bullying could be a part of IIED. This Comment examines _Raess_ in the context of workplace bullying and current U.S. law and proposes using the tort of civil assault as a means of combating bullying. Part II focuses on defining and describing workplace bullying. Parts III and IV examine foreign and U.S. anti-bullying law, respectively. Part V analyzes the possible effects of _Raess_ on U.S. law, and compares it to a British case that led to the passage of the Protection from Harassment Act.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.