From Allen v. Noble, a decision rendered last week by Judge Latonia Williams of the Connecticut Superior Court for New Haven, the plaintiff’s factual allegations are presented (for Noble’s perspective regarding the now-dropped criminal charges tied to what appears to be the same incident, see this NY Post op-ed—she denies using slurs and maintains that surveillance footage shows “[n]o confrontation, not even any interaction, with the accuser”):
[P]laintiff asserts the following facts. The plaintiff, an American citizen of African descent, was employed as a parking lot attendant for Pro-Park Mobility during the period at issue. The defendant Noble, during the same period, held the position of executive director, employee, and agent for service of process for the Buckley Institute. Before July 6, 2023, one or both defendants allegedly made an agreement with the plaintiff’s employer to lease parking spaces for Buckley Institute staff, including Noble, in the lot where the plaintiff works as an attendant (the parking lot).
The complaint alleges that around July 6, 2023, while the plaintiff was on duty in the parking lot, he informed Noble that the lot was at capacity and could not accommodate her parking needs. The plaintiff contends that he overheard Noble utter, “fucking niggers,” and that he did not respond to her remark.
The complaint further alleges that on or about July 13, 2023, while the plaintiff was on duty, Noble told him she could not locate a parking space, and the plaintiff reiterated that the lot was full and unable to accommodate her. The complaint claims that Noble responded: “You’s niggers get jobs and don’t know how to act!,” and that the plaintiff remained silent.
The complaint additionally asserts that on or about July 27, 2023, the plaintiff saw Noble arrive at the parking lot and found there was no available space due to the lot being full. It is alleged that at that moment, in the presence of two bystanders and the plaintiff, Noble verbally referred to the plaintiff as a “nigger” on three occasions over a dispute about parking.
The complaint states that “[t]he plaintiff, by reason of Noble’s racially odious, racially demeaning, cruel, abhorrent, and racist epithets directed toward … [the plaintiff], was exposed to public ridicule and humiliation, suffered significant annoyance, embarrassment, shame, and degradation, and, furthermore, damaged his reputation and goodwill with many individuals who would otherwise have treated him favorably because of Noble’s egregious and foul misconduct she directed toward him.” …
The court permitted the plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed:
“In order for a plaintiff to prevail on a claim for liability under … [IIED], four elements must be proven. First, the actor must have intended to cause emotional distress or must have known or reasonably should have known that such distress was a likely consequence of his behavior. Second, the conduct in question must be extreme and outrageous. Third, that conduct must have caused the plaintiff’s distress. And fourth, the distress suffered by the plaintiff must be severe.” “Liability for [IIED] requires conduct that surpasses all limits ordinarily tolerated by decent society …. Liability has been established only where the behavior is so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is considered atrocious and utterly intolerable within a civilized community…. Behavior that is merely insulting or marked by poor manners or that results in hurt feelings is not enough to form the basis of an IIED claim.”
“Whether a defendant’s conduct meets the standard of extreme and outrageous is initially a matter for the court to decide…. Only where reasonable minds disagree does it become a matter for the jury.” “In evaluating an IIED claim, the court acts as a gatekeeper. In this role, the court’s task is to determine whether the allegations in the complaint describe conduct that a reasonable fact-finder could deem extreme or outrageous. In performing this function, the court is not engaged in fact-finding; rather, it is assessing, as a matter of law, whether the alleged conduct satisfies the criteria required to support a claim premised on IIED.” …
Generally, courts have shown greater willingness to find sufficient allegations of outrageous conduct when the conduct involves violence, threats of violence, or racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious slurs…. Lamothe v. Russell (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009) (supervisor constantly belittled, berated, and screamed at the plaintiff, repeatedly mocked her by calling her fat, threw objects near or at her, and, on at least one occasion in front of others, grabbed a cigarette from her mouth and/or hands while screaming). Leone v. New England Communications (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002) (owners subjected plaintiff to persistent ethnic slurs, sexually offensive remarks, sexually offensive pictures placed on the plaintiff’s computer, and insulting comments about his sexual orientation). Cortazar v. Staples the Office Superstore (Conn. Super. Ct. 2012)….
Regarding the particular term at issue in this case, our Supreme Court’s analysis in State v. Lienbenguth (2020) offers an extensive examination of the profoundly offensive and demeaning nature of the word “nigger.” The court notes that:
Not only is the word “nigger” undoubtedly the most hateful and inflammatory racial slur in contemporary American English; …; but it is perhaps the single most offensive word in the English language. See, e.g., Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (“[The] epithet [’nigger’] has been described, alternately, as a term that epitomizes all the bitter years of insult and struggle in America,” [L. Hughes, The Big Sea: An Autobiography], “pure anathema to African-Americans,” Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass (4th Cir. 2001), and “probably the most offensive word in English”); R. Kennedy, The David C. Baum Lecture: ‘Nigger!’ as a Problem in the Law, 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 935 (though “[t]he American language is (and has long been) replete with terms of ethnic, racial, and national insult: kike, mick, wop, nip, gook, honkie, wetback, chink, [etc.] … ‘nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English’”); Dictionary.com, available at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nigger?s=t (“The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been
Natalie Foster
I’m a political writer focused on making complex issues clear, accessible, and worth engaging with. From local dynamics to national debates, I aim to connect facts with context so readers can form their own informed views. I believe strong journalism should challenge, question, and open space for thoughtful discussion rather than amplify noise.