its obvious effect on plaintiff. As her supervisor, Lewis knew that plaintiff’s absenteeism had increased since his actions commenced. Further, plaintiff frequently described to Lewis her anxiety regarding her financial situation, a predicament at least partially caused by Lewis’s refusual to perform mandatory salary reviews. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Lewis’s harassment constituted extreme and outrageous conduct, and that it caused emotional distress which no reasonable woman could endure. See Pyle v. Pyle, 11 Ohio App.3d 31, 463 N.E.2d 98 (1983). Further, as established in the previous section, the defendant is liable for the tort of its supervisor under the theory of respondeat superior. See Stranahan Bros. Catering v. Coit, 55 Ohio St. 398, 45 N.E. 634 (1896) (<HOLDING>). Damages Plaintiff may recover back pay in an
holding that the principal is liable for an agents acts committed within the scope of the agents employment holding a principal liable for its sales agents misrepresentations holding that while an agents knowledge is imputed to the principal due to the identity of interests that is presumed when an agent acts within the scope of an agency relation this rule does not operate in the converse and the agent cannot be imputed with the information which its principal has failed to give it holding that the principal must have control and supervision over the details of the agents work holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes