The? bases? for? the? plaintiff?s? claims? in? this? case were? ?blond? jokes?? and? other? derogatory comments and abusive conduct by her supervisor. The supervisor?s conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer from heart palpations and anxiety. ?She sued the supervisor in court.?? In 2005 the Washington Supreme Court had ruled that the local government notice ?of ?claim? statute ?did ?not ?as ?then-written extend to claims against individual government officials.?? (The statute has since been amended). This ruling did not stop the Superior Court from granting the defendant?s motion to dismiss in 2007. Division II reversed but upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff?s? ?intentional? ?infliction?? of?? emotional distress ?claim? on ?the ?merits ?because ?the supervisor?s? ?comments? ?were? ?not? ?beyond? ?the bounds of all decency. ?The appellate court ruled, however, that the plaintiff?s allegations presented a jury issue on negligent infliction of emotional distress.? ?The court held that the allegations ?exceeded the bounds of a workplace personality dispute.? ?The court?s decision to let the case go to trial was founded in part on the plaintiff?s allegations that her boss had spit on her and caused her to fear that he would hit her.?? The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff was required to file a union grievance.?? It correctly ruled that the basis for her claims did not depend on?? the?? collective?? bargaining?? agreement,?? but rather state tort law.?? ?The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff?s section 1983 claim. Strong v. Terrell, 147 Wn. App. 376, 195 P.3d 977 ?(2008) ?(Quinn-Brintnall, ?Armstrong, ?van Deren).