Federal Judiciary

D.C. Circuit Revisits Tort Case Involving Kidnapped Foreign Employee

By Robert Loblaw

Khan v. Parsons Global Service, 07-7059 (April 11, 2008)

A memorable tort case has made its way back to the D.C. Circuit. Defendant Parsons Global Services relocated plaintiff Azhar Ali Khan to its office in the Philippines. From my November 2005 coverage:

While traveling to Manila to find a place to live, Khan was kidnapped and held for three weeks. Back home, Khan?s wife felt that Parsons was toying with her by first agreeing to pay any ransom but then backing out of the deal for fear of the long-term impact on other Parsons employees. After the kidnappers cut off Khan?s ear, Parsons paid the ransom and he was released.

Khan sued, alleging negligence based on the defendant?s dithering on the ransom payment. His wife added her own claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on the fact that she had to watch her husband?s torture on videotape. The district court initially dismissed the plaintiffs? claims on the ground that workers compensation was their sole remedy. In the first round of appeals, the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded.

This time, the district court dismissed the Khans claims on the ground that he had signed an arbitration agreement with Parsons. Once again, the D.C. Circuit reverses, explaining that Parsons waived its right to demand arbitration by asking the court to grant summary judgment on the merits.

Finally, the D.C. Circuit reverses the district court?s decision that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court explains that the Khans have several avenues for proving this tort:

For example, Parsons? alleged successful efforts to prevent Mrs. Khan from privately paying the ransom, despite threats of torture and mutilation, may have exposed Mrs. Khan to the guilt of knowing that she could have prevented Mr. Khan?s suffering and  disfigurement if she had been able to convince Parsons to provide the ransom details that they withheld from her. In the context of Mr. Khan?s employment by Parsons, this could certainly be considered “atrocious” conduct.

Full post as published by Decision of the Day on April 11, 2008 (boomark / email).