a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort.’ ” Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, cmt. d (1965)). “The standard for making a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is very high.” Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 195 (1st Cir.1996). “Even putting as harsh a face on [Defendants’] actions” as the facts reasonably allow, Tetrault, 681 N.E.2d at 1197, Defendants’ response was not, as a matter of law, so extreme and outrageous as to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress. As stated above, Defendants made some efforts to respond to Plaintiffs harassment. Defendants, for instance, met with Plaintiff and her parents, offered Plaintiff an alternative parking 12075, at *13 (D.Mass. May 28, 2004) (<HOLDING>). Summary judgment is therefore granted on
holding that assistant principals allegedly defective investigation did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct holding that schools failure to inform plaintiffs parents or the police or to conduct its own investigation in response to learning that plaintiff had been raped at school was insufficiently extreme and outrageous holding school officials investigation of high school coachs sexual misconduct with students while on the border of deliberate indifference or intentional discrimination was insufficiently extreme and outrageous holding that defendantemployers failure to follow mandatory personnel policies governing performance evaluations and its discipline and removal of plaintiff from his position without cause did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct holding that even if the plaintiffstudent proved her claim of discrimination on the basis of disability the schools conduct was not so extreme or outrageous as to be intolerable in a civilized community