Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the conduct was sufficiently extreme to result in liability.” Taking all of Taing’s evidence as true, Farrens’ conduct is not in the ballpark of Washington’s standard for outrageousness, and the summary judgment evidence does not support the more extreme characterization of events contained in Taing’s pleadings and briefs. Evidence that Farrens might have yelled at Taing once, combined with continued lecturing when Taing asked her to stop so her blood “won’t go up and up,” simply are not the types of behavior that Washington law recognizes as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. There is no evidence that Farrens continued her lecturing after Taing began to manifest symptoms of illness or an anxiety attack, nor was there evidence that Tain 2d 536, 539 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Boeing relies on Saridakis v. United 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs state law claim against a nonsignatory to the cba was preempted by  301 (B) holding claim not preempted where court is required to read and apply cba provisions that are neither uncertain nor ambiguous (C) holding that a claim based on a supervisors circulation of a suspension letter accusing the plaintiff of cocaine use was not preempted despite cba provisions authorizing employee discipline (D) holding that the plaintiffs claim that he was owed wages following his discharge was preempted because this right was created by a cba provision stating that an employee who is discharged shall be paid immediately (E) holding that plaintiffs retaliatory discharge claim under michigan law was not preempted because the statelaw tort of retaliatory discharge creates rights independent of those established by the collective bargaining agreement further holding that discrimination claim was not preempted even though the employer was likely to rely on provisions of the cba in its defense
Output (English): holding that plaintiffs retaliatory discharge claim under michigan law was not preempted because the statelaw tort of retaliatory discharge creates rights independent of those established by the collective bargaining agreement further holding that discrimination claim was not preempted even though the employer was likely to rely on provisions of the cba in its defense