go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. . . . Such does not include mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other vicissitudes of daily living. Plaintiffs are expected to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind. (Footnotes omitted.) Jarrard, supra, 242 Ga. App. at 59. Here, Martin’s conduct, including the assignment of arduous labor, obstruction of Wilcher’s ability to complete her work, and comments such as “Lori Reaves, Wilcher, whatever” when calling her over the intercom simply do not, as a matter of law, meet this standard. See Everett v. Goodloe, 268 Ga. App. 536, 545 (602 SE2d 284) (2004) (<HOLDING>). While Martin’s conduct appears to be annoying
holding that the question of whether police had a reasonable basis for finding that a third party had authority to consent to search is a question of law holding that while the question of whether a reasonable person would believe his person was seized was normally a question of law that the district court was still entitled to deference because its determination in this case is inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the witnesses holding that the issue of whether distress was so extreme that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it is a question of law holding it is a question of fact holding that an alleged victim of sexual assault need not plead with graphic specificity any additional objective physical injury  and clearly experiences severe emotional distress that no reasonable person could be expected to endure