Tortious Interference: Ammunition Against Workplace Bullies and Harassers?

            A new case in Florida is part of a growing trend where employees strike back against coworkers who bully or harass them at work. In Alexis v. Ventura, out of Florida’s 3d DCA, the court said it was error to dismiss a tortious interference claim against a supervisor.

            She alleged that her boss created a hostile environment motivated by a discriminatory intent against her. The court set out the elements of a tortious interference claim:

To state a claim for unlawful interference with an advantageous business

relationship, Alexis must allege the following elements:

1. The existence of a relationship between Alexis and her employer, under

which Alexis has legal rights;

2. Ventura’s knowledge of the relationship;

3. An intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship;

4. By a third party;

5. Resulting in damages to Alexis caused by the interference.

Sloan v. Sax, 505 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

The question on appeal was whether the supervisor was a “third party” for purposes of her claim. Normally, a supervisory or managerial employee is considered to be a party to the employment relationship. However, the court said:

There is a recognized exception to this general rule, as explained in O.E. Smith’s Sons, Inc., v. George, 545 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989):

For the interference to be unjustified, the defendant must be a third party, external to the business relationship. However, the privileged interference enjoyed by a party that is integral to the business relationship is not absolute. The privilege is divested when the defendant “acts solely with ulterior purposes and the advice is not in the principal’s best interest.”

Id. at 299 (quoting Sloan v. Sax, 505 So. 2d 526, 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)).

            I thought this was an interesting case because it could provide extra ammunition to an employee who is a harassment or even a bullying victim. The problem with suing individuals, of course, is that they rarely are wealthy enough to pay off judgments of any amount. Still, where bullying and general harassment are legal, this type of suit might enable victimized employees to strike back.

            I checked it out and it looks like tortious interference claims have been allowed in some states but not others. Some states that seem to be allowing these claims (I’m sure my colleagues in these states will tell me if I’m wrong) include Massachussetts, Texas, Missouri and New York. In addition to the problems with suing the individuals, your company is always going to be a “party” to your employment relationship, so you won’t be able to tag your employer with this type of claim.

            Another downside I see to these claims is you have to claim the coworker or supervisor was acting outside the scope of their employment, which might mean a free pass from the employer if you’re also suing them. But if the company points to the individual and says they were working outside the scope of their employment, it might be wise to bring in the individual and let the jury decide which one is to blame.

            I’m always looking for ways to go after bullies, so this looks like a promising claim if it’s allowed in your state.