Pemberton v. Bethlehem Steel Corp (1986)

a.       Facts- D, a steel company, was not happy with P’s work, a union rep. D hired a private investigator to place him under surveillance. The investigator found evidence that P was cheating on his wife, and sent same to P’s wife. The investigator also found P’s mug shots and publicized same. P sued D for outrage tort

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct gave summary judgment for D, Ct of appeals affirmed

c.       Issue- Whether P can bring outrage action against D for releasing mug shot pictures and exposing extramarital affair

d.      Holding- No, P cannot bring outrage action against D for releasing mug shot pictures and exposing extramarital affair

e.       Rule- Besides the conduct itself, the Ct must also consider the “personality of the individual to whom the misconduct is directed”

                                                              i.      The damages P presented were not enough to satisfy the “distress/damages” element

f.       Rationale- The P was considered to be a “rough-and-tumble” personality, therefore we must consider this info. There is nothing wrong with publicizing mug shots or exposing an extramarital affair. Further, P did not show any distress (damage), which is the 4^th elemental requirement of outrage tort

g.      Notes:

                                                              i.      “Truth” as a defense:

1.      Public figures/officials HAVE to have “thick skin”

2.      “Actual malice” must be established

3.      Being cast into a public figure position…does NOT make you a public official