Question

While living in her home country of Tanzania, Sophia Kiwanuka signed an employment contract with Anne Margareth Bakilana, a Tanzanian living in Washington, D.C. Kiwanuka traveled to the United States to work as a babysitter and maid in Bakilana’s house. When Kiwanuka arrived, Bakilana confiscated her passport, held her in isolation, and forced her to work long hours under threat of having her deported. Kiwanuka worked seven days a week without breaks and was subjected to regular verbal and psychological abuse by Bakilana. Kiwanuka filed a complaint against Bakilana for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. Bakilana argued that Kiwanuka’s complaint should be dismissed because the allegations were insufficient to show outrageous intentional conduct that resulted in severe emotional distress. If you were the judge, in whose favor would you rule? Why? [Kiwanuka v. Bakilana, 844 F.Supp.2d 107 Miller, Roger LeRoy. Business Law: Text & Cases - The First Course - Summarized Case Edition (p. 123). Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition.

Answer 1

In this example, Kiwanuka is suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This can be defined as extreme and outrageous conduct which results in severe emotional distress to another person. This act must be severely extreme, to an extent that is not normally tolerated by society. In such cases, threatening conduct coupled with repeated annoyances can be enough to offer support to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

If I were the judge, I would rule in favor of Kiwanuka, as I the fact that Bakilana held Kiwanuka in isolation and confiscated her passport is evidence of extreme emotional distress.