* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined tha t this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60722

Summary Calendar

PAULA JO WHITMIRE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VICTUS LIMITED T/A MASTER DESIGN FURNITURE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:97-CV-321-B-A)

May 31, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Paula Jo Whitmire app eals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Victus Ltd., on

her claims of assault and intentional infliction of emotional

distress. We affirm.

I1 We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo

. S ee

Horton v. City of Houston , 179 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir. 1999).

2 Assault occurs where a person “(a)

... acts intending to cause a harmful

or offensive contact with the person of the other o r a third person, or an

imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) the other is thereby put in such

imminent apprehension.” W ebb v. Jackson

, 583 So. 2d 946, 951 (Miss. 1991). We

note also that in order for this claim not to be barred by Mississippi’s workers

compensation statute, the alleged tortfeasor’s action must be “intentional

behavior designed to bring about the injury.” S ee A.W. Stevens v. FMC Corp.

, 515

So. 2d 928, 931 (Miss. 1987).

3 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Devers

, 405 So. 2d 898, 902 (Miss. 1981). The

Mississippi Supreme Court continues to enforce this requirement. S ee Donald v.

Amoco Production Co.

, 735 So. 2d 161, 179 (Miss. 1999) (reaffirming the holding

2 Whitmire challenges the district court’s ruling that Whitmire

had failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether

the plant manager who pushed and injured her acted with intent to

cause a harmful or offensive contact. 1 Whitmire argues that the

act was intentional because the plant manager intended to push her.

But assault requires not only intent to contact the plaintiff, but

intent that the contact be “harmful or o ffensive.” 2 The district

court did not err in concluding that the plaintiff created no

genuine dispute about the intent to harm. She had admitted that

the push was mere horseplay.

II

Whitmire also challenges the district court’s ruling that her

allegations of mistreatment by her employer do not evoke “outrage

or revulsion.” Under Mississippi law, an intentional infliction of

emotional distress plaintiff cannot recover unless she proves that

the harmful conduct of the de fendant “evokes outrage or

revulsion.” 3 This court has held, in interpreting Mississippi law,of Devers ).

4 See White v. Walker

, 950 F.2d 972, 978 (5th Cir. 1991) (q uoting

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965)).

5 The existence vel non of contractually imposed duties is not at issue in

this appeal.

6 See Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners, L.P.

, 28 F.3d 543, 547 (5th Cir.

1994), and cases cited therein.

3 that the “outrage and revulsion” standa rd requires that “the

conduct [be] so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree,

as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded

as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” 4

Whitmire alleges that she was demoted and lost her office

space. She was given few or no responsibilities and a shabby

office that had previously been used for storage. Her supervisors

either yelled at her or refused to talk to her. These actions were

taken, she alleges, to force her out of her job. While these

allegations describe unpleasant and mean-spirited treatment,

Whitmire does not describe conduct that is outrageous or atrocious.

Indeed, her employer owes her no legally imposed d uty 5 to provide

a decent workspace, m eaningful responsibility, or a civil boss.

The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in employment does

not extend to termination, including constructive termination. 6 In

sum, her allegations do not rise to the level of cond uct evoking

outrage and revulsion, and thus summary judgment in favor of Victus

on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was

proper.4 III

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED.