Clayton v. Wisener Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A doctor’s persistent, vulgar sexual harassment of a medical billing representative over the phone was found to be intentional infliction of emotional distress, but not invasion of privacy, as the latter tort requires physical intrusion or eavesdropping.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that a sustained course of severe verbal harassment can meet the “extreme and outrageous” standard for IIED, while narrowly construing the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion to exclude non-physical, non-eavesdropping conduct.
Clayton v. Wisener Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Susan Wisener, a medical billing representative for Medaphis, was assigned to Dr. Tom Clayton’s account. From November 1995 to May 1996, during business calls, Dr. Clayton allegedly subjected Wisener to a continuous course of harassment. This included asking intrusive questions about her sex life, making sexually explicit propositions, using vulgar language, and commenting on her body. He persisted in this conduct despite her requests that he stop. While Wisener was hospitalized, Dr. Clayton allegedly told her to remove her shirt. Wisener sued Dr. Clayton, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and invasion of privacy. A jury found in her favor on both claims, awarding actual and exemplary damages. Dr. Clayton appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings on liability and damages.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a sustained course of offensive and vulgar sexual propositions made over the telephone constitute extreme and outrageous conduct for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and also satisfy the elements for an invasion of privacy by intrusion claim?
The court affirmed the finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress, holding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non pro
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a sustained course of offensive and vulgar sexual propositions made over the telephone constitute extreme and outrageous conduct for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and also satisfy the elements for an invasion of privacy by intrusion claim?
Conclusion
The case demonstrates that while severe verbal harassment can constitute IIED, the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ven
Legal Rule
To recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dol
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis distinguished between the requirements for IIED and invasion of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- IIED Upheld: A continuous course of sexual harassment and vulgar propositions