692 JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY
backed up against the wall.^85 Believing that the surgeon intended
to “smack the [shit] out of [him],” Doescher raised his hands in
defense.^86 Instead, Dr. Raess walked past Doescher and exited
the room after screaming, “You’re over. You’re history. You’re
finished.”^87 At trial, Doescher testified that he “felt assaulted”
by Dr. Raess’s behavior^88 and retained Dr. Gary Namie of the
WBI to testify as an expert witness.^89 The Indiana Supreme
Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to admit Dr. Namie’s
testimony^90 and the jury verdict that Dr. Raess was liable for
civil assault.^91
Dissenting Justice Boehm, however, believed that the trial
court erred in admitting Dr. Namie’s testimony.^92 Before trial,
Dr. Raess had moved to exclude Dr. Namie’s testimony because
“workplace bullying” was not a recognized tort and had no legal
definition, but the trial court denied the motion without
explanation.^93 Justice Boehm believed that without a legal
context for workplace bullying, Dr. Namie’s testimony—that Dr.
Raess was a “workplace abuser” and the incident was “an
episode of workplace bullying”—amounted to “highly prejudicial
name-calling.”^94 Although some commentators are hopeful that
the result of Raess will help protect Targets from workplace
bullying,^95 Justice Boehm’s dissent and the trial court’s decision
to exclude the term “workplace bullying” from jury instructions
demonstrate judicial reluctance to adopt tort relief directly
addressing the phenomenon and highlight the need for workplace
bullying to be legally recognized and statutorily defined.
(^85) Raess, 858 N.E.2d at 121.
(^86) Id.
(^87) Id.
(^88) Id.
(^89) Raess, 883 N.E.2d at 801 (Boehm, J., dissenting).
(^90) Id. at 797 (majority opinion).
(^91) Id. at 799.
(^92) Id. at 800 (Boehm, J., dissenting).
(^93) Id.
(^94) Id. at 801.
(^95) See Jordan F. Kaplan, Comment, Help Is on the Way: A Recent Case
Sheds Light on Workplace Bullying, 47 HOUS. L. REV. 141, 172–73 (2010).