When an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim rode alongside an employment claim, California courts sustained the demurrer to it in 48 of 73 decided claims. The claim survived in 25. What separated them, in the court's own words, was whether the complaint described specific conduct.
The number
| What happened to the IIED claim | Claims |
|---|---|
| Survived (demurrer overruled) | 25 of 73 |
| Knocked out, with leave to amend or leave not stated | 37 of 73 |
| Knocked out for good (no leave to amend) | 11 of 73 |
These are IIED claims pled alongside an employment claim, such as harassment, discrimination, retaliation or wrongful termination, as of October 21, 2026.
What decides it: the conduct on the page
Every IIED claim must plead extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or reckless disregard, severe emotional distress, and causation (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035). In these rulings, the outrageousness element did most of the work.
We could check the court's stated reason, word for word, in 44 of the 48 knockouts and 22 of the 25 survivals.
| Why the claim was knocked out | Claims |
|---|---|
| Conduct not extreme and outrageous | 16 of 44 |
| Ordinary personnel decisions (firing, discipline, criticism) | 9 of 44 |
| Labels instead of facts | 5 of 44 |
| Workers' comp exclusivity | 4 of 44 |
| Other reasons (severe distress, limitations, and others) | 10 of 44 |
| Why the claim survived | Claims |
|---|---|
| The complaint pled specific harassment, discrimination or assault | 14 of 22 |
| The complaint pled violence, threats or slurs | 3 of 22 |
| Other reasons (employer liability, workers' comp argument failed, and others) | 5 of 22 |
The first three knockout reasons, 30 of 44, are one problem: the complaint did not describe conduct a court could call outrageous. One court put it this way: "Again, Plaintiff only makes conclusory allegations without any facts regarding conduct of any Defendant that was so extreme and outrageous as to be beyond the bounds tolerated in a civilized society." (Los Angeles, 25CHCV03967, 2026-06-25.)
What the average hides: personnel decisions vs. harassment
The same workplace can be pled two ways. Pled as personnel decisions, the claim lost in 9 of the 44 knockouts. "A simple pleading of personnel management activity is insufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged." (Los Angeles, 25STCV10579, 2026-06-03.)
Pled as specific harassment or discrimination, the claim survived in 14 of the 22 survivals. One court relied on a supervisor's words: "Here the facts alleged show that Plaintiff’s supervisor made several comments with sexual innuendo and discussed other women’s appearances with Plaintiff." (Contra Costa, C24-02540, 2026-01-09.) Another quoted the rule: "Neither discrimination nor harassment is a normal incident of employment." (Los Angeles, 25STCV28302, 2026-05-07.)
What to do
| If you represent the employee | If you represent the employer |
|---|---|
| Describe the conduct, not the atmosphere. Name what was said or done, by whom, how often, and who saw it. | Read the complaint for those specifics. Labels and personnel decisions lost in 14 of the 44 knockouts. |
| If the conduct was harassment or discrimination, plead it as that, with dates and words. | If the complaint pleads specific harassment, an outrageousness attack is weaker. Harassment pled with specifics survived in 14 of the 22 survivals. |
Method: 333 IIED claims in 326 California superior court tentative rulings on demurrers. 74 were pled alongside an employment claim, and 73 of those were decided, as of October 21, 2026. Reasons are LawSnap's coding of the court's main stated reason, one per claim, checked word for word against the ruling, for 44 of the 48 knockouts and 22 of the 25 survivals. Claims pled alongside both an employment and a habitability claim are a separate group and are left out. These are tentative rulings, not precedent, and these counts are not odds of winning. Nothing here is legal advice.