conduct to be “extreme and outrageous.” To establish “outrageousness,” the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct was “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Id. Given that the jury found the District liable for IIED, we must allow the verdict to stand “unless the evidence, together with all inferences that can be reasonably drawn therefrom is so one-sided [in favor of the moving party] that reasonable men could not disagree on the verdict.” Milone v. Wash. Met. Area Transit Auth., 91 F.3d 229, 231 (D.C.Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, a reasonable jury could have returned a verdict for Mr 96) (<HOLDING>). In any event, the verdicts here are not
holding jeopardy had not attached because the district court was without power to enter a judgment of conviction in a pretrial proceeding holding that court erred as matter of law in failing to enter judgment for employer at close of plaintiffs implied employment contract action holding that defendants failure to renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law which was denied by the district court when they made it at the close of the evidence limited the relief the appellate court could grant to a new trial holding that it may be decided as a matter of law holding that it was error for a district court to enter   judgment as a matter of law solely on the basis of inconsistent verdicts