With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. The Court concluded that this conduct could be considered severe and outrageous, and permitted an inference that the supervisor intended to harm the plaintiff emotionally. Id.; but see, King v. Wiseway Super Center, Inc., 954 F.Supp. 1289 (N.D.Ind.1997) (dismissing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, where the Plaintiffs supervisor constantly sabotaged her efforts to perform her job by scheduling her improperly, not allowing her to perform her job duties, not treating her as a manager, not giving her the information she needed, never communicating with her, never training her, forcing her to work without breaks, and making derogatory comments to others about her and her abilities); see also, McCreary v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 132 F.3d 1159 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Imhoff has not alleged

A: holding that assistant principals allegedly defective investigation did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct
B: holding that a single incident of yelling at plaintiff and refusing to assign him to quality control is not the kind of extreme and outrageous conduct the indiana supreme court had in mind when it adopted the tort
C: holding that where the complaint alleged that the employer gave the plaintiff a poor performance review increased his sales goals by 42 and pressured him to take early retirement the conduct was not extreme and outrageous
D: holding that defendantemployers failure to follow mandatory personnel policies governing performance evaluations and its discipline and removal of plaintiff from his position without cause did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct
B.