When you make a telephone call to Verizon Wireless, the last thing you expect is to be accused of threatening the customer service representative. But that is exactly what happened to 53-year-old Angela Hawkins of Virginia. Hawkins said that she phoned Verizon in November 2014 because she had a question regarding her account.
Hawkins communicated with a customer service representative for a minimum of 20 minutes, at which point she was transferred to a supervisor. However, once she started speaking with the supervisor, he accused her of having made threats towards the customer service representative. The supervisor then told her that he was going to call the police.
Needless to say, Hawkins was extremely upset by the supervisor’s words, so much so that on the following day, she visited her doctor, who informed her that an EKG showed that she had had a heart attack. Hawkin’s also “had visions of SWAT guys breaking her door down and putting her in leg shackles.” She also incurred medical bills in an amount that exceeded $60,000, and that the medication that she is required to take for the duration of her life, costs $120,000.
As a result of the injury she suffered because of this most unpleasant phone call, she has filed suit against Verizon, alleging negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hawkins is requesting $2.35 million in damages.
So what kind of claims could Hawkins make based on this case?
Negligence
Negligence is the failure to act with the care that a reasonably prudent person would use in similar circumstances. It is behavior that is careless, and not intentional, that causes harm to the victim.
The elements of negligence are as follows:
- Defendant must have owed a duty to plaintiff;
- Defendant must have breached that duty to plaintiff by engaging in behavior that posed an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff;
- Plaintiff would not have been injured ‘but for,’ or without, defendant’s breach of duty to plaintiff. This means that defendant’s behavior was the cause-in-fact of plaintiff’s injury;
- Defendant could have reasonably foreseen that his or her actions would have caused harm to plaintiff. This is also referred to as proximate causation; and
- Plaintiff must be able to prove that he or she suffered actual damages as a result of defendant’s failure to use reasonable care.
The employee was certainly negligent in his treatment of the plaintiff in that he had a duty to provide her with good customer service, but instead, he breached that duty by causing her much physical and emotional harm. Verizon is also liable to Hawkins under the theory of respondeat superior, or vicarious liability. In English, it means that the employer is liable for the negligent behavior of its employees when the employees are acting within the scope of their employment. In this case, since the supervisor and the customer service representative were taking a call from a customer, they were acting within the scope of their employment, and thus, Verizon is liable for their actions.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is a tort that claims that the defendant has intentionally engaged in conduct that causes severe emotional distress to the plaintiff. The elements of IIED are as follows:
- Defendant must have behaved intentionally or recklessly;
- Defendant’s actions were extreme and outrageous;
- Defendant’s conduct caused plaintiff to become distressed; and
- Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress because of defendant’s actions.
The behavior of the supervisor and customer service representative was intentional and reckless in that the representative was dishonest when she told her supervisor that the customer had threatened her, and the supervisor instilled much fear into the customer when he told her that he was going to call the police. Such behavior was extreme and outrageous, and caused the customer to suffer extreme emotional distress.
A Horrible Wrong
Although the supervisor later apologized to Hawkins for the “miscommunication,” the damage had already been done. The supervisor acknowledged that after listening to a recording of the initial phone call, he realized that she had made no threats towards anyone. In addition to monetary damages, the plaintiff said that she would like Verizon to recognize the fact that the employee’s actions constituted a “horrible wrong.”
The employee’s behavior towards the plaintiff was very wrongful, and is an example of very poor customer service. But it is also quite frightening to learn that a Verizon employee could be so callous as to make a false accusation to a customer, and then threaten to call the authorities.
Authored by Roxanne Minott, LegalMatch Legal Writer and Attorney at Law
Comments