Student Too Late for Claims Against University

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.

In the case of Martin v. University of New Haven, a student, filed an action against defendant, a university, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other causes of action. In order for the student to prevail in a case for liability under intentional infliction of emotional distress, four elements must be established. It must be shown (1) that the school intended to inflict emotional distress or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the 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. The university filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of the counts.

The student alleged that university employees harassed him because of his physical appearance, his religious convictions, and his general demeanor. The student alleged that the university was negligent in the retention and supervision of these employees, that through the intentional acts of its employees, the university deliberately slowed the process of the student's graduation in order to cause the student emotional distress, and that these actions caused him severe emotional distress. The university alleged that the negligence counts were barred by the two-year statute of limitations as set forth by Connecticut law. The student's deposition testimony established that he knew that he had a claim against the university more than two years prior to the date of the filing of the action. Once the student discovered the injury, the continuous course of conduct doctrine ceased to apply. Thus, the court held that the negligence claims were time-barred. The court further held that the student failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as the alleged actions of university employees did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.

Summary judgment was granted to the university on all counts. “Notwithstanding that [the conduct of the school] may have been distressing to the [student], they do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct within the meaning of the cases referred to previously. The school’s conduct in the present case was not so atrocious as to ‘exceed all bounds usually tolerated by decent society’" said the court. “Therefore, considering the alleged facts and the supporting evidence in the light most favorable to the [student] the court cannot conclude that reasonable minds could find the [university’s] conduct toward the [student] extreme and outrageous for purposes of intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

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: Martin v. Univ. of New Haven, Inc., 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3214, 2006 WL 3289773 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 24, 2006)