$[2$:$39$ pm$,7/7/2024]$ Sai Charan Anna: Questions $41$ through $43$ are based on Cunningham v$.$ Dabbs. Cunningham was terminated because she was getting married. Was the court willing to make an exception to the employment at will doctrine and declare this termination wrongful?

Group of answer choices

a$.$Yes

b$.$No$.$

$[2$:$39$ pm$,7/7/2024]$ Sai Charan Anna: What other claims did Cunningham make against Dabbs?

Group of answer choices

a$.$Invasion of Privacy

b$.$Outrage $($also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress$)$

c$.$Sexual harassment

d$.$all of the above

e$.$a and b

$[2$:$39$ pm$,7/7/2024]$ Sai Charan Anna: Which of Cunningham's claims were held to present questions of fact that could only be decided by a jury and were therefore inappropriate for summary judgment? $($This case is a good illustration of a couple of important things to remember. Even though Cunningham lost on her wrongful termination claim, the recovery in such cases is fairly limited$$she would not have been entitled to punitive damages or attorneys fees; too, damages for emotional distress$/$humiliation would not have been available either. On the other hand, if she recovers on either the outrage or the breach of privacy claim, she will be eligible for a punitive damages award$$and those awards wont be subject to the fairly low limits available in a typical Title VII case.$)$

Group of answer choices

a$.$Invasion of

$[2$:$39$ pm$,7/7/2024]$ Sai Charan Anna: a$.$Invasion of Privacy

b$.$Outrage $($also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress$)$

c$.$Sexual harassment

d$.$a and c

e$.$a and b