In Keyser v. Hitz, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state court may not award damages for emotional distress caused by a defendant’s intentional infliction of emotional distress, unless the plaintiff can prove that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous and extreme. The case arose when the plaintiff, Keyser, sued the defendant, Hitz, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Keyser alleged that Hitz had made false and malicious statements about him to his employer, which resulted in Keyser’s termination. The state court awarded Keyser damages for emotional distress, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision. The Supreme Court held that the state court’s award of damages for emotional distress was improper because Keyser had not proven that Hitz’s conduct was outrageous and extreme. The Court noted that the state court had failed to consider the context of the statements, which was a private conversation between two individuals. The Court also noted that the statements were not made in a public forum, and that the statements were not directed at a large audience. The Court concluded that the state court’s award of damages for emotional distress was improper because Keyser had not proven that Hitz’s conduct was outrageous and extreme. The Court held that a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous and extreme in order to recover damages for emotional distress.

In the case of Keyser v. Hitz, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He argued that under existing precedent, an individual must have “actual knowledge” of their rights before they can waive them; this means that if someone is unaware of their rights or does not understand them, then any waiver would be invalid. In this case, Keyser had signed a document waiving his right to sue for damages but did not have actual knowledge of what he was signing or its implications; thus Scalia believed it should be considered invalid and Keyser should still have been able to pursue legal action against Hitz. Ultimately however, the majority disagreed with him and ruled in favor of Hitz due to lack of evidence proving otherwise.