Moniodis v. Cook

Marguerite Cook and three former coworkers (plaintiffs) sued their former employer, Rite-Aid of Maryland, Inc. (Rite-Aid), district manager Anthony Moniodis, and another corporate officer, James Spevock (defendants). In investigating inventory shortages, Rite-Aid required employees to submit to polygraph tests in direct violation of a Maryland law that restricted such tests for prospective or continued employment. If employees refused to take the test, Rite-Aid terminated them or employed tactics designed to make the employees quit, such as reducing their hours or transferring them to distant stores. Cook’s employment was terminated after she refused to submit to a transfer and a reduction in her hours. Cook’s terminated coworkers were upset at the treatment they received but went about their lives without having the same emotional reaction as Cook. Cook already had a nervous condition. After being fired, Cook’s emotional state declined, and she had to take more medication and mostly slept. Cook’s husband testified that she became reclusive for a year and that relatives had to come to their home to perform chores that Cook could not handle anymore. Cook and her former coworkers sued for compensatory and punitive damages based on intentional infliction of emotional distress and another claim. Moniodis and Rite-Aid moved for a directed verdict, which a circuit court denied. A jury found in favor of Cook and her former coworkers on both claims and granted each plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages against Rite-Aid, Moniodis, and Spevock. Rite-Aid, Moniodis, and Spevock appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that the defendants had engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct or that extreme emotional harm resulted.