Thus, Jones' purported single utterance of the phrase "the black issue" is not sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to create a racially hostile working environment. See, e.g., Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 642-44 (affirming grant of summary judgment to defendant employer on hostile work environment claim even where latinx plaintiff's supervisor directly told him he had "a typical Hispanic macho attitude" and that he should consider transferring to the field because "Hispanics do good in the field."); see also Kennedy v. UMC Univ. Med. Ctr., 203 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1107-08 (D. Nev. 2016) (granting summary judgment to Defendant (the same as in this case) on the plaintiff's hostile work environment claim stemming from the same reduction in force as this case where the plaintiff's supervisor "described people in the office [directly to the plaintiff] as 'Black lady' or 'Black guy,'" and where her supervisor once told the plaintiff "that she did not look or sound Black"). 2. Alleged Disproportionate Audits
However, even accepting these allegations as true, such symptoms are insufficient to establish severe emotional distress. See Kennedy v. UMC University Medical Center, 203 F.Supp.3d 1100, 1110 (D. Nev. 2016) (finding that anxiety and panic attacks were insufficient to establish severe and emotional distress); Taylor v. Clark Cnty Sch. Dist., No. 2:18-cv-01264, 2019 WL 2453648, at *5 (D. Nev. June 11, 2019) (“The only specific examples of emotional distress in the complaint are the panic attack on June 1, 2017, and the stress and anxiety that lead to the FMLA release, neither of which amount to severe emotional distress.”); Kelley v. City of Henderson, No. 2:15-cv-02204, 2017 WL 2802732, at *7 (D. Nev. June 27, 2017) (“Kelley's allegations of humiliation, anxiety, embarrassment, and severe emotional distress do not suffice to allege she experienced severe emotional distress.”); Bravo v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., No. 2:14-cv-1616, 2014 WL 7178359, at *6 (D. Nev. Dec. 17, 2014) (finding that the plaintiff's alleged anxiety, anguish, and worrying was insufficient to sustain an IIED claim).
E. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress To “prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), a plaintiff must show (1) extreme and outrageous conduct with either the intention of, or reckless disregard for, causing emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's having suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual or proximate causation.” Kennedy v. UMC University Medical Center, 203 F.Supp.3d 1100, 1110 (D. Nev. 2016). “Extreme and outrageous conduct, as an element of [IIED], is that which is outside all bounds of decency and is regarded as utterly intolerable in a civilized community; persons must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind.