This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In June 1999, P began working for D as a sales representative. In January 2002, P was transferred to a new division selling medical equipment for bariatric weight-loss surgery. P became a bariatric account manager (BAM) based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, with a sales territory in the Dakotas, Minnesota, and parts of Wisconsin. A few months after she became a BAM, D reorganized the sales territories. P lost Minnesota and Wisconsin but added Iowa to her territory. P's immediate supervisor (Burns) and other D representatives discussed eliminating the Sioux Falls territory and instead basing a BAM in Louisville, Kentucky. On August 13, 2002, P's territory was discussed and it was determined she would be offered a Louisville BAM position. On August 26, Burns emailed human resources stating that he would proceed with a 'territory collapse,' necessitating either a separation or relocation package for P. On September 4, P learned she was pregnant. The same day she told Burns about the pregnancy. P alleges that Burns congratulated her but said to 'keep that information to themselves.' Additionally, Burns told P to meet him in Sioux Falls on September 11, seven days earlier than originally planned, to review her performance evaluation. During that meeting Burns informed P about the elimination of her specific territory and gave her a letter detailing a relocation package and transfer to Louisville, or alternatively, a severance package. If she relocated P would maintain the same title, pay, and advancement prospects as she had as the Sioux Falls BAM. P had from September 18 to 20 in order to decide; if she chose severance, her last day of work was October 28. Between September 16 and 18, P was also offered the option of taking the BAM position in St. Louis. P told D she would not make a decision until after her baby was born. Her due date was May 1. In late September she suffered a miscarriage. P claims the elimination of her position and the manner of notification caused the miscarriage and subsequent diagnosis of depression. On October 22, D informed P that the options to transfer remained open. D also extended her last day from October 28 to November 28, 2002. P was eventually terminated because she refused to transfer. P sued Ds. P claimed that Ds are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) for informing her about the elimination and relocation in a distressing manner. Burns, knowing she was pregnant, continued to let her believe the purpose of their September 11th meeting was to review her performance. Instead, she was notified about the elimination of her territory and possible relocation. P asserts she suffered a miscarriage and sought treatment for depressive symptoms, all proximately caused by the stress she endured. The trial court disagreed and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.