claims, but consists of discrete elements established in law to prevent the intentional infliction of mental suffering.” Gard, 859 F.Supp. at 1354. Thus, the facts necessary to prove a claim for outrageous conduct “cannot be similar or identical to, nor can they be said to share a common nucleus of operative facts with, the federal statutory claims over which [the court] has original jurisdiction.” Id.; see also Katz v. City of Aurora, 85 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1021 (D.Colo.2000) (noting-under Colorado law, “where the allegations forming the basis of a claim for outrageous conduct are the same as those forming the basis for a claim of discrimination, and nothing more, they fail to state an independently cognizable claim”); Visor v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 965 F.Supp. 31, 33 (D.Colo.1997) (<HOLDING>). By her own admission, Plaintiff
holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability holding plaintiffs allegations forming the basis of a claim for outrageous conduct must exceed those which would state a colorable claim of discrimination holding that where the conduct forming the basis of the plaintiffs breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claim is the same conduct forming the basis for the breach of contract claim the claims merge and there is no separate cause of action for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing holding that it was not error for trial court to decline to conduct full evidentiary hearing before trial on outrageous government conduct claim