read as a purported admission by McCollough was outrageous, or at the very least, is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact. He also points to Noblesville Schools and argues that its intentional publication of an altered statement that was attributed to McCollough as an admission that he hit a player with a ball, an allegation that McCollough adamantly denied, was extreme and outrageous conduct. [16] We agree with the Defendants that even accepting the facts as presented by McCollough, we cannot say that the Defendants’ conduct, even if intentional, qualifies as being so outrageous in character or extreme in degree that it is to be regarded as atrocious or utterly intolerable in a civilized community. See Jaffri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 26 N.E.3d 635, 640 (Ind.Ct.App.2015) (<HOLDING>); cf. Mitchell v. Stevenson, 677 N.E.2d 551
holding article 1802 claims only survive where the conduct alleged of is based on tortious or negligent conduct different from the conduct covered by other specific labor laws involved holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence holding that even assuming defendant intentionally mishandled mortgagerelated documents such conduct is notthe type of beyondthepale outrageous conduct that may be covered by an iied claim holding that standard for iied is objective and there was no outrageous conduct where plaintiff simply made vague assertions about employers motives for his dismissal holding that it was not error for trial court to decline to conduct full evidentiary hearing before trial on outrageous government conduct claim