Question

In Van Stan v. Fancy Colours & Company, the plaintiff was fired and sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court discussed the type of conduct that rises to the level of extreme and outrageous. Which of the following was not considered extreme and outrageous conduct giving rise to intentional infliction of emotional distress?
A.Firing an employee when she refuses to have sex with her boss and then threatening to bring a legal action to challenge her rights to custody of her child, threatening to rape her, threatening to kill her and threatening to disrupt her new employment.
B.Firing an employee with a bipolar disorder who needed reduced hours because of the disability by calling their home to fire them and falsely claiming it was for low production.
C.Neither a or b were considered extreme and outrageous conduct in an employment situation.
D.Both a and b were considered extreme and outrageous conduct even in an employment situation.

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 2 characters.