What could elevate abusive language to extreme and outrageous conduct in IIED claims?

When considering the context of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claims, the relationship between the parties involved is a crucial factor in determining whether certain conduct can be classified as "extreme and outrageous." A defendant who holds a position of authority over the plaintiff has the potential to significantly elevate abusive language to a level that might be considered extreme and outrageous.

This dynamic can amplify the distress caused by the defendant's conduct because the plaintiff may feel particularly powerless or vulnerable, heightening the emotional impact of the abusive language. Authority figures, such as employers, teachers, or law enforcement, are usually expected to uphold a standard of conduct that includes treating individuals with respect and dignity. When they resort to abusive language, the breach of this expectation can be perceived as particularly shocking or harmful, warranting a stronger reaction and making it more likely that the conduct will satisfy the legal threshold for IIED.

In contrast, mere abusive language from a neighbor, involvement of public figures, or the plaintiff’s past experiences with similar incidents do not inherently elevate the severity of the conduct in the same way. Authority can create an imbalance in power that intensifies the emotional harm suffered, supporting the premise that such conduct may cross the line into extreme and outrageous territory.