result in illness or bodily harm, as equivalent to requiring proof that the defendant’s conduct was “extreme and outrageous”); Lund v. Stern & Company, No. CV 94-0463413, 1995 WL 216846 at *1 (Conn.Super., Apr.4,1995) (striking plaintiffs claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress where the plaintiff failed to allege any unreasonable conduct occurring at the time of discharge. ‘Where the allegations fail to establish that the meeting or any other aspect of the actual discharge was done in an inconsiderate, humiliating or embarrassing manner, [t]he mere fact of termination ... does not give rise to a claim for unintentional infliction of emotional distress”); Skierkowski v. Creative Graphics Services Inc., No. CV 94-0463242S, 1995 WL 283945 at *5 (Conn.Super., May 5, 1995) (<HOLDING>). We are not alone in our concern over the
holding that the close connection in time between the complaint and termination indicated that complaints could have been a motivating factor for employees termination holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that a termination of benefits must go handinhand with a termination of the liability of an employer holding that complaint must allege more than mere termination such as that the termination was done in an inconsiderate humiliating or embarrassing manner holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable