A. No, provided that D’s purpose was not to cause P extreme emotional distress.

1. On many occasions over an eight-month period, D repeatedly solicited P, a married person, to have sex. These included repeated telephone calls to P’s residence, including late at night, and on one occasion, going to P’s residence, where P witnessed D’s indecent exposure. P became extremely upset, concerned about bodily safety, consulted a psychiatrist for several months and took prescribed anti-anxiety medications for that period. On these facts, could the jury award damages for IIED?

A. No, provided that D’s purpose was not to cause P extreme emotional distress.

B. Yes, because anxiety is a physical reaction, as shown by the psychiatrist’s prescribing medication.

C. No, a solicitation for sex, however insulting, offensive or boorish it may be insufficient as a matter of law to support a claim for IIED.

D. Yes, provided that the jury finds that even if a single solicitation is not extreme and outrageous conduct, repeated solicitations and indecent exposure are.

2. P, a member of a minority group in the United States, alleges that D, P’s supervisor referred to P with a racial epithet in the presence of another supervisor, who laughed. P alleges becoming a “nervous wreck,” bursting into tears and having to run into the bathroom to regain composure. On two subsequent occasions the next week, D attempted to present P with a written apology, but P refused. On these facts, could a jury find for P on P’s claim for IIED?

A. Yes, because using a racial slur is rude, boorish, and substantially certain to cause the target to become upset and agitated.

B. No, because D twice attempted to apologize to P within a short time after the incident.

C. Yes, provided that D knew or should have known that P was particularly sensitive about race.

D. No, because P did not suffer extreme emotional disturbance.

A. No, provided that D’s purpose was not to cause P extreme emotional distress.