Case Study: Garrison v. Bobbitt Assignment
Rebecca Jordan
Liberty University, Helms School of Government
FIRE 320: Legal and Political Issues in Fire Administration
Professor Greg Wormser
July 13, 2025
Case Study: Garrison v. Bobbitt Assignment
This case study examines the legal dispute Garrison v. Bobbitt, decided by the Court of
Appeals of Ohio, Second District, focusing on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional
distress (IIED). IIED occurs when a person, through extreme or outrageous conduct, intentionally
or recklessly causes another individual to suffer severe emotional or psychological harm. As
defined by Varone (2014), this tort allows victims to seek damages for emotional and physical
harm caused by such behavior. Because of the serious nature of these claims, courts must
evaluate them carefully to determine their legitimacy. This paper will explore whether the facts
of Garrison v. Bobbitt meet the legal standards for IIED, including an analysis of the defendant’s
conduct and its emotional impact on the plaintiff. Additionally, the paper will address the moral
and ethical dimensions of the case, examining whether the actions align with accepted
standards of decency and integrity. The aim is to provide a comprehensive legal and moral
evaluation.
Case Background and Legal Framework
To properly analyze this case, it is essential to begin by understanding the legal concept
of tort. According to Varone (2014), a tort is defined as “an act committed by one or more
parties that causes injury to another for which the law allows a remedy of monetary damages.”
Torts generally fall into three main categories: negligence, intentional torts, and strict liability. A
plaintiff may file a lawsuit under any of these categories, depending on the nature of the alleged
harm (Dobbs et al., 2021).
In the case of Garrison v. Bobbitt, the claim centers on the alleged intentional infliction
of emotional distress. Orpheus Garrison contends that Bobbitt intentionally caused him severe
emotional harm, which forms the basis of the lawsuit. To assess the validity of this claim, we
must examine the events leading to and surrounding the alleged misconduct. Intentional
infliction of emotional distress (IIED) requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s conduct
was extreme and outrageous, intended to cause distress, and did in fact result in severe
emotional suffering (Prosser, Wade, & Schwartz, 2012). Courts often look for patterns of
behavior or circumstances that go beyond mere insults or indignities to determine if the legal
threshold has been met (Chemerinsky, 2018).
Factual Overview
Garrison was originally scheduled to join the Miamisburg Fire Department in February
1991. However, as a Marine Corps Captain, he was deployed in support of Operation Desert
Storm. He was assured by the city of Miamisburg that his job would be held until his return.
Upon his return in June 1991, Garrison was not immediately reinstated. Instead, he began
working in August and was assigned a seniority date corresponding to that month.
Garrison disputed this decision, arguing that his seniority should reflect the original
February start date, as federal law protects employment rights for military members called to
active duty. Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
(USERRA), service members are entitled to reemployment with the same seniority, status, and
pay they would have attained had they not been absent for military service (U.S. Department of
Labor, 2023). After reaching out to the Department of Labor, Garrison successfully secured his
February seniority date. However, due to the city's policy requiring a one-year probationary
period, his seniority was not immediately honored. After completing probation, Miamisburg
officials claimed they had forgotten the agreed-upon terms, forcing Garrison to seek
Department of Labor intervention once again. A final agreement was eventually reached,
granting Garrison the correct seniority date, but this dispute significantly strained his
relationship with the department (Varone, 2014).
Garrison later alleged that, following this conflict, he was subject to ongoing harassment
and disparate treatment by members of the fire department. He cited multiple instances,
including denial of overtime pay, unjustified use of vacation time for attending training,
exclusion from special teams (e.g., hazardous materials, scuba, and tactical entry), unequal
reimbursement of expenses, and denial of promotions. He was also reportedly ostracized from
the fire chief’s softball team and treated unfairly in disciplinary matters (Varone, 2014). These
allegations, if true, may form the basis for a claim of a hostile work environment under
employment discrimination laws (Moran, 2020).
Further aggravating the situation, rumors circulated within the department portraying
Garrison as a slumlord, a troublemaker, and a dishonorable soldier. These rumors, coupled with
personal hardships—such as the death of his father and the end of a long-term relationship—
reportedly contributed to Garrison's deteriorating mental health. A coworker, Randy Botts, even
informed a supervisor that Garrison was in a dark emotional state and might be experiencing
suicidal thoughts. Under intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims, such behavior
may be scrutinized to determine whether the conduct was extreme and outrageous, resulting in
severe emotional distress (Prosser, Wade, & Schwartz, 2012; Chemerinsky, 2018).
The Fire Incident and Arrest
In 1996, Garrison initiated a recreational fire at one of his rental properties. Per
department policy, all recreational fires must be reported and inspected. Although Garrison
made a report at approximately 9:00 a.m., no inspector arrived until 3:00 p.m. Upon inspection,
the fire was deemed non-compliant with the ordinance and Garrison was directed to extinguish
it, which he did. Later that day, additional calls reported a fire at the same property. This time,
Chief Bobbitt personally responded. A fire was again found burning, though Garrison denied
restarting it, claiming someone else must have done so in his absence.
Despite plausible explanations and a lack of precedent for arresting individuals over
recreational fire violations, Bobbitt had Garrison arrested. Garrison noted that other citizens
had similar infractions multiple times per year without facing arrest. He interpreted the arrest as
confirmation of the hostile treatment he had been receiving and believed it was evidence that
Bobbitt was intentionally targeting him (Varone, 2014).
Legal Analysis
The pattern of events—including repeated denial of rights, workplace harassment,
unequal treatment, and a questionable arrest—suggests a sustained effort to undermine
Garrison’s professional standing and emotional well-being. When viewed in totality, these
incidents may substantiate Garrison’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, as
defined under tort law. The consistent and targeted nature of the mistreatment indicates more
than mere workplace conflict; it potentially rises to the level of deliberate emotional sabotage.
Therefore, based on the evidence presented, there appears to be a strong foundation for
Garrison's legal claim.
Biblical Integration
From a moral and spiritual standpoint, this case is deeply troubling and reflects behavior
that stands in stark contrast to biblical principles. Colossians 3:12 reminds us, “Put on therefore,
as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind,
meekness, longsuffering” (King James Version, 1982). As followers of Christ, we are called to
reflect these virtues in our interactions with others. The actions described in this case—marked
by hostility, resentment, and mistreatment—do not align with the teachings of Jesus. Harboring
prejudice and holding grudges not only harm the individuals targeted but also damage the
overall health and integrity of a community. Spiritually and ethically, such behavior is
destructive and far removed from the character God calls us to embody.
Conclusion
The case of Garrison v. Bobbitt illustrates a troubling pattern of mistreatment,
professional sabotage, and emotional harm directed at Orpheus Garrison following his lawful
efforts to assert his employment rights. What began as a dispute over seniority rights escalated
into ongoing harassment, exclusion, and ultimately, an arrest that appeared to be both
unprecedented and targeted. Legally, these events form a strong basis for Garrison's claim of
intentional infliction of emotional distress, a recognized tort in civil law. His allegations are not
isolated incidents but part of a larger pattern that, when taken together, reveal deliberate and
harmful intent.
From a moral and biblical perspective, this case reflects a failure to uphold the values of
compassion, justice, and humility that Scripture calls us to embody. Colossians 3:12 (KJV)
exhorts believers to “put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies,
kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering.” The behavior described in this case—
marked by grudges, bias, and retaliation—stands in clear contrast to these virtues. In both a
legal and spiritual sense, the actions taken against Garrison demonstrate how damaging it can
be when individuals abandon empathy and fairness in favor of resentment and personal
vendettas. Justice, accountability, and compassion must remain central to both our institutions
and our personal conduct.
References
Chemerinsky, E. (2018). Constitutional law: Principles and policies (5th ed.). Wolters
Kluwer.
Dobbs, D. B., Hayden, P. T., & Bublick, E. M. (2021). The law of torts (3rd ed.). West
Academic Publishing.
Moran, J. J. (2020). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment (7th
ed.). Pearson.
Prosser, W. L., Wade, J. W., & Schwartz, V. E. (2012). Prosser, Wade and Schwartz's
Torts: Cases and materials (12th ed.). Foundation Press.
The Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
1982.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2023). Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act (USERRA). https://www.dol.gov/agencies/vets/programs/userra
Varone, J. C. (2014). Legal Considerations for Fire & Emergency Services (Third
Edition). PennWell Corporation, Tulsa, OK.
https://libertyonline.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9781593703479/pageid/2
Varone, L. C. (2014). Legal and ethical issues in emergency services (3rd ed.). Jones &
Bartlett Learning.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
