undisputed that all actions complained of in this case occurred in connection with the drawn out termination process. Plaintiffs claim that his emotional distress was caused by uncertainty in his official employment status clearly arises out of the nature of his employment. Moreover, in order to prevail under a common law theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress plaintiff must show that the conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Agis v. Howard Johnson Company, 371 Mass. 140, 145, 355 N.E.2d 315 (1976). As a matter of law, the contact alleged certainly does not rise to the required level of outrageousness. See Richey v. American Automobile Association, 380 Mass. 835, 406 N.E.2d 675 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Mathias v. Beatrice Foods Co., 23 Mass.App.
holding that an isolated remark made by the plaintiffs supervisor lacked a sufficient nexus to the plaintiffs termination several months later holding that defendant did not have a special responsibility to exercise independent judgment in the plaintiffs behalf and to look after the plaintiffs interests holding that the conduct of plaintiffs supervisor in terminating the plaintiff after attempting to verify plaintiffs excessive absences did not make out a plausible case of outrage holding that a plaintiffs complaint need only establish a plausible entitlement to relief holding plaintiffs supervisor subject to suit