With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to plead a prima facie intentional infliction of emotional distress claim). And the fact that Turner had already concluded that Nelson intentionally took the wallet and interviewed her for the sole purpose of persuading Nelson to admit it simply does not offend "generally accepted standards of decency and morality." See Franco, 2001 UT 25, ¶ 25, 21 P.3d 198 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Dubois v. Grand Central, 872 P.2d 1073, 1079 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (concluding that the plaintiff's allegations that a retail store "fired her ... based on incorrect information[] does not rise to the level of outrageous or intolerable conduct necessary to establish a prima facie claim of emotional distress"); cf. Cabaness v. Thomas, 2010 UT 23, ¶¶ 39-45, 232 P.3d 486 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the district court did not err

A: holding that there was a factual issue about whether a supervisors conduct was outrageous where the supervisor insulted and demeaned the plaintiff every day for years told him to divorce his wife forced him to work on a power line in the rain and criticized him about personal matters in front of other employees after learning that the plaintiff suffered from depression
B: holding that the plaintiffs evidence that his back injury precluded him from performing at least 50 of the jobs previously available to him was enough to classify him as disabled under the ada
C: holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity
D: holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave
A.