had ever experienced such an episode at work before. In terms of the content of Farrens’ “beratement,” there is nothing like the racial slurs at issue in Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., the case Taing cited to the district court to support her claim. Although Taing experienced an extreme reaction to Farrens’ lecturing, reasonable minds could not differ on the issue of whether Farrens’ conduct, as described in Taing’s summary judgment evidence, rose to the level of “intolerable in a civilized society.” The district court’s judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9TH Cir. R. 36-3. 1 . 29U.S.C. § 185(a). 2 . Farrens and Ewen claim that T , 1088 (9th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Tellez v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 817
holding that plaintiffs state claims were not preempted because defendant failed to show that these claims rested on standards other than those permitted by the fda holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan holding that the plaintiffs claims based on pregnancyrelated harassment were not preempted