Was Margaret likely to succeed in her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against MDC?

In this scenario, the key to understanding Margaret's potential success in an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against MDC lies in the standard of conduct required to establish such a claim. For a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to succeed, the conduct of the defendant must be deemed to be extreme or outrageous.

Option B aligns with the legal standards for this tort because it highlights that MDC's conduct did not meet the threshold of extremity or outrageousness required to support a claim. Courts typically consider the context of the conduct and whether it goes beyond the bounds of decency expected in civilized behavior. If MDC's actions were within what could be typically tolerated in the workplace or did not intentionally target Margaret in such a way to inflict emotional distress, this would support the notion that the conduct was not extreme or outrageous.

In assessing the other options, the fact that Margaret was pregnant (Option C) may evoke sympathy but does not inherently change the nature of MDC's actions or the legal standard for determining emotional distress. Similarly, the length of employment (Option D) is not a determinative factor in assessing the appropriateness of the conduct in question. Therefore, while factors such as pregnancy and duration of employment can be relevant in other contexts, they