With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". employee). Accordingly, Toney’s breach of contract claim will be dismissed. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Select Hospital has moved for summary judgment on Toney’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the dual bases that (1) she has failed to identify, much less present proof of conduct rising to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required for a cognizable claim, see Raiola v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 872 So.2d 79, 85 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (noting that “[o]nly in the most unusual cases does the conduct move out of the realm of an ordinary employment dispute into the classification of extreme and outrageous, as required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress”); Pegues v. Emerson Elec. Co., 913 F.Supp. 976, 982 (N.D.Miss.1996) (<HOLDING>); and (2) she has not presented proof that she

A: holding that assistant principals allegedly defective investigation did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct
B: holding that spreading of deliberately false statements that employee in effect committed forgery constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct
C: holding that claims in an employment setting are viable only when the employers conduct is so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community
D: holding that mere insults indignities and threats are not extreme and outrageous acts
C.