his desire for plaintiffs to come to work braless and wear less clothing; acted as if he was going to pinch one of the plaintiff’s breasts with a pair of pliers and his hands; put his arm around the plaintiffs, grabbed their arms, and stroked their necks); Quillen, 874 F.Supp. at 1298 & n. 4 (denying summary judgment on outrageous conduct claims against defendants where plaintiff alleged defendant: used vulgar and suggestive language toward plaintiff; he told plaintiff they should get naked; he arranged for them to share a hotel room; he appeared nude in front of plaintiff; and he touched plaintiff on different occasions and in ways that offended her, including tickling, grabbing her by the waist, and trying to kiss her) with Anderton v. Gentry, 577 So.2d 1261, 1262-64 (Ala.1991) (<HOLDING>); Busby, 551 So.2d at 327-28 (discussing
holding that defendant could not be liable for distributing defamatory statements unless it knew or had reason to know of statements holding that sexrelated statements by a coworker made to the plaintiff while she was at home and on suspension from work did not amount to improper conduct at the workplace and therefore did not constitute actionable sexual harassment holding that defendants alleged defamatory statements that plaintiff made loans in exchange for sexual favors did not constitute outrageous conduct holding plaintiffs must plead alleged defamatory statements with precision holding that a town manager did not act under color of state law when making allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff