Kiwanis v. Baking Case Study

According to the book, the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress can be defined as an extreme and outrageous act, intentionally committed, that results in severe emotional distress to another.

To be actionable (capable of serving as the ground for a lawsuit), the conduct must be so extreme and outrageous that it exceeds the bounds of decency accepted by society. Business Law Today, 10th Edition, peg. 99. In the case of Kiwanis v. Baking, Baking did cause emotional distress to Ms.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Kiwanis by threatening her with deportation, making her work twenty-four hours a day, grabbing her by the shirt collar, and taking her passport and papers which are extreme and outrageous acts and were intentionally committed.

According to the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act. 18 U. S. C.

A. 1589; 1590, Baking violated this act when she made Kiwanis work twenty-four hours a day, yelled, screamed and threaten Kiwanis with deportation, which was enough to establish “condition of servitude”. E Thirteenth Amendment states that it prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. See U. S. Constitution of the United States.

In this case Kiwanis had to work twenty- four hours a day and was not allowed to leave the house. She was kept isolated from other people therefore causing more emotional distress by not having contact with others. The FBI recorded Baking threatening Kiwanis with deportation and yelling at her. This evidence helped Kinswoman’s case and the Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Greer with Judge Lamberts on most of this case.

He did rule for the plaintiff on emotional distress and this outrageous conduct of Ms.

Baking. He granted her restitution of her wages. If I were the Judge I would have awarded her more money and given Baking more than 2 years’ probation. Don’t agree with the part that Mr.. Rheumatic was cleared of liability.

I believe he played a role in this case by not protecting the plaintiff from his wife’s extreme behavior. I believe he was guilty for not paying her decent wages and he should not eave allowed his wife to take her papers and passport.