least some students who were the subject of tips. As stated above, a jury could find that Defendants’ response to the incidents was at times ineffective and unreasonable. Of particular concern is the fact that the most pronounced portion of Assistant Principal’s Weinstein’s recollection of the incident in which “cunt” was keyed on Plaintiffs car is that Plaintiff yelled at him. See Weinstein Dep. 145 in PL’s Ex C; PL’s Ex. H at p.10. However, even if a jury could find that Assistant Principal Weinstein’s actions were unreasonable and demonstrate indifference, no reasonable jury could find that Defendants’ response went beyond all possible bounds of decency and was utterly intolerable in a civilized community. See, e.g., Jones v, Maloney, 74 Mass.App.Ct. 745, 910 N.E.2d 412, 417- (2009) (<HOLDING>); Morgan v. Town of Lexington, No.
holding that mere insults indignities and threats are not extreme and outrageous acts holding that assistant principals allegedly defective investigation did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct holding that spreading of deliberately false statements that employee in effect committed forgery constitutes 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 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