Case Summary and Outcome

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that the plaintiff had met the burden for satisfying the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, awarded damages along with passing a restraining order against the defendants who operate the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer. In the instant case, after Ms. Taylor Dumpson was elected as the first female, African-American student government president at American University (AU), a masked man hung nooses with bananas inscribed with phrases such as “AKA Free” and “Harambe bait”. Soon after, Mr. Andrew Anglin posted a racist article about Ms. Dumpson on his website and directed his followers to “troll storm” Ms. Dumpson, in which Mr. Brian Andrew Ade participated. The court ruled that the defendants targeted the plaintiff because of her race and gender, due to which the plaintiff felt unsafe and her access AU’s campus and its resources, was impacted. This infringed on her right to enjoy public accommodation guaranteed under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977. The court further noted that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress due to defendants conduct which went beyond “mere insults” or “inconsiderate and unkind” behaviour and therefore, they were liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff. An amount of $101,429.28 as compensatory damages, $500,000 as punitive damages, and $124,022.10 as attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff was awarded in relation to online harassment perpetrated by the defendants.

Facts

Taylor Dumpson (the plaintiff) filed this case against Brian Andrew Ade, Andrew Anglin, and Moonbase Holdings, LLC (the defendants) for allegedly interfering with her right to full and equal enjoyment of places of public accommodation and for intentional infliction of emotional distress [p. 1]. Anglin is the founder and publisher of the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website.

Decision Overview

Justice Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presided over this case. The main issue for consideration was whether the defendants had infringed the plaintiff’s right to full and equal enjoyment of places of public accommodation and caused her intentional infliction of emotional distress.

First, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants infringed her right to enjoy public accommodation, specifically the AU campus by igniting the “troll storm” and harassing her because of her race and gender [p. 9]. Consequently, she felt unsafe on the campus and her ability to socialize on the AU campus was impacted. The court observed that “every individual has the right to an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of life, including….in places of public accommodation” and that it would be unlawful to “directly or indirectly deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodations on the basis of a variety of factors including race and gender” [p. 8]. While applying the above-mentioned provision to the instant case, the court noted that the defendants targeted the plaintiff because of her race and gender by sending her threatening messages and encouraging others to do the same, due to which the plaintiff felt unsafe and therefore, this troll storm initiated by the defendants impacted the plaintiff’s enjoyment of AU and its resources [p. 10].

Second, the plaintiff alleged that “the defendant’s article which mocked the noose incident and encouraged people to troll storm her was intended to inflict emotional distress” [p. 11]. She further contended that the encouraged harassment and online attacks ridiculed her because of her race and gender, which was “so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be intolerable in a civilized society” [p. 11]. The court held that the defendants’ actions were “racially motivated and intentionally resulted in a campaign of racial and gender harassment”. The court noted that the defendants encouraged others to harass the plaintiff online which led to more than thirty messages by Daily Stormer followers over at least two months and therefore, this conduct went beyond “mere insults” or “inconsiderate and unkind” behaviour [p. 12]. The court further noted that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress due to defendants conduct as she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), an eating disorder, depression, and anxiety.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had met her burden for satisfying the three elements of a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress: the defendants participated in extreme and outrageous conduct, the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, and the defendants’ conduct intentionally or recklessly caused the plaintiff’s emotional distress [p. 12-13]. Since the defendants did not respond to the complaint, a default judgement was passed [p. 14].