“three, four and five times a week” and frequent nightmares. Security USA has failed to offer convincing evidence indicating that Claggett’s assignment of Gantt to unsecured Post # 9 and Claggett’s obdurate refusal to remove Gantt even after Sheppard telephoned her there could not have caused a significant portion of the severe emotional distress that Gantt testified she continued to suffer after December 7. Given this record, we cannot hold that the district court properly granted summary judgment on this basis. We note that Maryland’s highest court has held that an employee’s far less egregious conduct toward another employee caused emotional distress sufficient to preclude summary judgment for the employer. See Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Le, 324 Md. 71, 595 A.2d 1067 (1991) (<HOLDING>). With respect to the second portion of Gantt’s
holding trial court should not have granted summary judgment to employer when employee offered evidence a company security officer falsely accused him of stealing a calculator and coerced him into signing a confession resulting in his loss of his job not fear for his life like gantt and loss of sleep for weeks not still reoccurring nightmares like gantt holding that when an employee is injured by his employers tortious conduct his employer owes him damages and compensation under the act holding that economic loss rule barred negligence claim because plaintiff could not show drug testing company had duty to protect against loss of his job as result of allegedly faulty test holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss holding that a company policy which forced an employee to choose between losing his job for the exercise of his rights under erisaprotected benefits or keeping his job and forcing him to give up his benefits would be essentially unfair or a quintessential hobsons choice 