Lastly, Van Tatenhove moved to dismiss Cruey’s “claim of outrage” against the city, which would be considered an intentional infliction of emotional distress upon Cruey.
Van Tatenhove stipulated that Kentucky case law reveals that the act of terminating an employee does not rise to the level of “extreme and outrageous conduct” and that her request for compensation for “embarrassment and humiliation” does not meet the standard for severe emotional distress under law.
Van Tatenhove’s decision to dismiss three counts of Cruey’s complaint came nearly a year after he ordered that Cruey’s claims against Blevins be severed from the claims filed against the city and Girdler.
Van Tatenhove, in his order, stated that the claims against Blevins — that he assaulted plaintiff Cruey during an “uncontrolled rage” on May 23, 2011 at the park — do not share common ground with Cruey’s claims against Girdler and the city of retaliation.
Cruey claims she was assaulted by Blevins during the May 23 incident. The lawsuit claims Blevins “chest and head-butted” Cruey. An earlier statement from Cruey made available to Somerset’s city council members states that Blevins “jumped in my face ... touching his nose to my nose and bumped his chest into mine.”
A menacing charge originally filed against Blevins was dismissed on the condition that Blevins stay at least 300 feet away from Cruey.
The third count of Cruey’s lawsuit, that her civil rights were violated by Girdler and the city “by causing her employment to be diminished by taking away hours and authority over others,” remains active.
The city, in its response to Cruey’s lawsuit, has denied all wrongdoing.