with the trial court that “[t]he nature of any termination is such that it often produces stress and mental anguish in the person being terminated [and] the test i's not whether or not the termination was traumatic, but whether or not the termination was outrageous.” Dahlberg’s conclusory allegations of a hostile work environment are insufficient to raise a factual issue about whether the defendants’ conduct was “extreme and outrageous,” and she has not pointed to evidence of specific instances in which the defendants’ 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. See Hubbard v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 330 N.W.2d 428, 439-40 (Minn.1983) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 26] Viewing the evidence in the light most
holding that mere insults indignities and threats are not extreme and outrageous acts holding employer discipline and written and verbal criticism of employees job performance not extreme and outrageous holding that assistant principals allegedly defective investigation did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct holding that where the complaint alleged that the employer gave the plaintiff a poor performance review increased his sales goals by 42 and pressured him to take early retirement the conduct was not 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