With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". South Dakota law and upholding judgment for the plaintiff where the employer manufactured reasons for terminating the plaintiff even though the employer knew that the plaintiffs medical condition made him particularly vulnerable to emotional distress). While no doubt upsetting to Dunn, the School District’s nonrenewal of his contract, even if done on an illegitimate basis, was not done in a manner involving extreme or outrageous conduct “calculated to cause” serious emotional distress. Hauff, 668 N.W.2d at 535; see also Reynolds v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 454 F.3d 868, 873-74 (8th Cir.2006) (applying South Dakota law and stating that “[wjhile termination from a job may be upsetting, this does not in itself constitute extreme or outrageous conduct”); Richardson, 531 N.W.2d at 28-29 (<HOLDING>). As for Eppard’s response to the EEOC, Dunn’s

A: holding employee had cause of action against her employers when nonemployee harassed her and employers failed to take corrective action
B: holding that when an employee is injured by his employers tortious conduct his employer owes him damages and compensation under the act
C: holding that isolated incident in which claimant raised voice at his supervisor in private office but in front of two other employees and possibly used profanity did not constitute misconduct sufficient to deny unemployment compensation benefits
D: holding that employers conduct was not extreme and outrageous where employer terminated employee and had her escorted out of the building but did not raise his voice or use profanity when doing so
D.