Within the last few decades, public opinion has greatly shaped the justice system to prevent "slippery slopes". This is most evident in the common law doctrine that restricts an alleged victim for recovering damages of emotional distress without notable physical manifestation in the eyes of a layperson—The Impact Doctrine. However, emotional distress is manifested in many psychological illnesses that do not require physical injury that are recognized as legitimate in psychology. This research explores the history of the rule and how it is inconsistent with not only areas of science; but also, other areas of the law. The purpose of this thesis is to explore alternatives to The Impact Doctrine. Through analysis of American common law, Florida common law, and British common law, it can be concluded that the British have found the best alternative to the rule that helps prevent "slippery slopes", while also bridging the gap between science and the law. By analyzing the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community and Civil Rights Actions, the LGBT community may bring a suit for emotional distress based upon a Civil Rights action.