RALPH J. ERICKSTAD, Surrogate Judge.1
Catherine Swenson appeals from a summary judgment and order, entered by the District Court for Williams County, dismissing her claims of gender discrimination, equal pay violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
As this is an appeal from a summary judgment and order, the reviewing court must consider the facts in a light most favorable to the opposing party. Rott v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 478 N.W.2d 570 (N.D.1991); Volk v. Wisconsin Mortgage Assurance Co., 474 N.W.2d 40 (N.D.1991). Swenson began working for Northern Crop Insurance, Inc., (NCI) in February of 1986 as a clerk/secretary. The only other employee in the office at that time was Rick Wallace, the office manager. Wallace resigned in December of 1986, and recommended Swenson for the position. Swenson contends that when she approached John Krabseth, an NCI officer, its general manager, and a stockholder, about filling the position, he told her that he needed a “man fresh out of college” to fill the position, not a woman. NCI’s Board of Directors disagreed with Krab-seth and approved Swenson’s promotion.
Subsequent to her promotion, Swenson’s salary was increased from $7.50 per hour to $10.00 per hour (approximately $5,000 per year less than Wallace, a man, made in the same position). Krabseth allegedly continued making derogatory and sexist comments to Swenson concerning her gender; he persisted in saying that a man belonged in her position and that men deserved to get paid more than women, apparently because they had families to support. Krabseth supposedly threatened Swenson that he was going to replace her with a man simply because he would not tolerate a woman in a management position making a high salary.
NCI was a growing business, so Krab-seth initiated a plan to expand and reorganize the office structure. Swenson contends that in conjunction with this reorganization, and in step with Krabseth’s desire to remove Swenson from the management position, Krabseth demoted Swenson to her clerk/secretary position, paying her $6.00 per hour ($1.50 per hour less than she made in the same position before). He also hired two young men to fill the positions of program specialist and computer operator. They were hired at higher rates than Swen-son. According to Swenson, Krabseth did not offer her the opportunity to apply for either of the positions, and he allegedly made comments pertaining to gender as being the reason for hiring the men. Krab-seth did most of these actions either without the approval of NCI’s Board of Directors, or he informed the Board of his actions after they were implemented. Regardless of the time when the Board gained its knowledge, it allegedly refused to help Swenson, even after she repeated her attempts to have the Board remedy Krabseth’s wrongs.
During the time of the reorganization, Krabseth allegedly began purposefully avoiding Swenson, refusing to speak with her about her employment at NCI. Even when Swenson confronted him and requested meetings with him, Krabseth allegedly avoided her. It was also at this time that Swenson returned to treatment and counseling for her alcoholism. Swenson, a recovering alcoholic, believed she was experiencing so much stress at work that she needed counseling and treatment to keep from drinking again. Swenson argues that Krabseth was aware of her deteriorating emotional condition because she asked for an extra five to ten minutes during her lunch hour so she could attend Alcoholics [177]*177Anonymous meetings. At no time during Swenson’s employment with NCI were there ten or more employees on NCI’s payr roll.
Contrary to Swenson’s presentation of the facts, NCI and Krabseth argue that Swenson was demoted not as a result of her gender, but because her position was phased out during the reorganization — she was no longer needed in that capacity because the position no longer existed. They also assert that Swenson was not qualified for the two new positions, and that the new positions were different from any of her former positions. They point to her lack of formal education in the field of agriculture, and emphasize that the two young men hired had college educations and were very familiar with the agriculture industry, as was Rick Wallace. They claim that Swen-son was simply deficient in the necessary qualifications for an upper-level position at NCI following its expansion.
Swenson terminated her employment and sued NCI and Krabseth in the District Court for Williams County. She claimed: (1) gender discrimination in violation of Chapter 14-02.4, N.D.C.C.; (2) violations of North Dakota’s Equal Pay Act, codified in Chapter 34-06.1, N.D.C.C.; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Upon NCI and Krabseth’s motion, the trial court granted summary judgment against Swenson on all three claims, dismissing hér suit. This timely appeal followed.
I.
GENDER DISCRIMINATION UNDER CHAPTER 14-02.4, N.D.C.C.
The first issue on appeal is whether or not Swenson is entitled to relief under North Dakota’s anti-discrimination statutes, or in the alternative, whether or not those statutes were unconstitutional at the time of the alleged discriminatory conduct.
The anti-discrimination statutes in effect in 1986 and 1987, the time of the alleged violations, only prohibited discrimination in workplaces with ten or more employees because “employer” was defined in the Chapter as one employing “ten or more” employees. Chapter 14-02.4, N.D.C.C. (1985 and 1987).2 Swenson's gender discrimination claim was dismissed by the trial court because less than ten people were employed at NCI when the alleged discrimination occurred.
The statutory definition of employer in effect in 1986 and 1987 was very clear and unambiguous. This Court is under a legislative directive to construe unambiguous statutes so that the meaning of the words are given full effect. “When the wording of a statute is clear and free of all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” Section 1-02-05, N.D.C.C. See Wills v. Schroeder Aviation, Inc., 390 N.W.2d 544, 546 (N.D.1986) (legislative in[178]*178tent is presumed clear from the face of the statute); Haggard v. Meier, 368 N.W.2d 539, 541 (N.D.1985) (it is improper for courts to attempt to construe statutory provisions so as to legislate additional requirements or proscriptions which the words of the provisions do not themselves include). Thus, under the wording of Chapter 14-02.4, as it was in 1986 and 1987, the anti-discrimination statutes did not apply to NCI. The inquiry, however, does not end here.
In the alternative, Swenson asserts that if the anti-discrimination statutes did not apply to NCI in 1986 and 1987, due to the ten-employee limitation, then the statutes were unconstitutional as invidious discrimination and violative of her equal protection rights. Swenson, however, has failed to clear various procedural hurdles in presenting this argument to our Court. Not only is this part of her argument anemic on appeal due to lack of attention and support in her appellate brief, but it is unavailing because it was not raised in the trial court. In her brief to the trial court opposing summary judgment, Swenson’s comments pertaining to the constitutionality of the earlier statutory definition were vague, very brief, and lacking case citation. We have repeatedly said:
“It is well established that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Gange v. Clerk of Burleigh County District Court, 429 N.W.2d 429, 432 n. 3 (N.D.1988). This constraint applies with particular force to a constitutional issue. Gange, 429 N.W.2d at 432 n. 3; State v. Slapnicka, 376 N.W.2d 33, 36 (N.D.1985). We therefore decline to address [the constitutional] argument.”
Hanson v. Williams County, 452 N.W.2d 313, 315 (N.D.1990).
During oral argument before this Court, Swenson urged that the attention afforded the constitutional issue in the trial court was sufficient to “raise the issue below.” We disagree. Swenson must do much more than acknowledge, in passing, the constitutional difficulties of a statute. We very recently reiterated the rule that parties must bring up the “heavy artillery” when asserting constitutional claims.
“The attention given the constitutional challenge [at the trial court] was not sufficient to ‘raise the issue below.’ One must do more than merely assert that a statute is [unconstitutional] to appropriately raise a constitutional issue. As Justice Vogel said:
‘One who attacks a statute on constitutional grounds, defended as that statute is by a strong presumption of constitutionality, should bring up his heavy artillery or forego the attack entirely.’
So. Valley Grain Dealers v. Bd. of Cty. Com’rs, 257 N.W.2d 425, 434 (N.D.1977) (emphasis added).”
State v. Tweed, 491 N.W.2d 412, 417 n. 5 (N.D.1992) (further emphasis added). Thus, Swenson’s failure to sufficiently raise her constitutional claim in the trial court precludes her from presenting it here.3 We affirm the trial court on the issue that Chapter 14-02.4, N.D.C.C., did not apply to NCI in 1986 and 1987.
II.
EQUAL PAY VIOLATIONS UNDER CHAPTER 34-06.1, N.D.C.C.
The second issue Swenson presents on appeal is that NCI violated North Dakota’s Equal Pay Act by paying her less than a man for a similar job because she is a [179]*179woman. The Act establishes public policy in these words:
“Declaration of public policy. The public policy of this state is declared to be that the practice of discriminating on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees of one sex at a lesser rate than the rate paid to employees of the opposite sex for comparable work on jobs which have comparable requirements unjustly discriminates against the person receiving the lesser rate; leads to low worker morale, high turnover, and frequent labor unrest; discourages workers paid at the lesser wage rates from training for higher level jobs; curtails employment opportunities, decreases workers’ mobility, and increases labor costs; impairs purchasing power and threatens the maintenance of an adequate standard of living by such workers and their families; prevents optimum utilization of the state’s available labor resources; threatens the well-being of citizens of this state; and adversely affects the general welfare. It is therefore declared to be the policy of this state through exercise of its police power to correct and, as rapidly as possible, to eliminate discriminatory wage practices based on sex.”
Section 34-06.1-01, N.D.C.C.
Before we reach the merits of this issue, we must address some procedural issues raised by NCI and Krabseth concerning Swenson’s response to their summary judgment motion under Rule 56, N.D.R.Civ.P. They assert that Swenson failed to present any admissible evidence on this issue to the trial court in her response to their motion, thereby violating Rule 56(e), N.D.R.Civ.P. In support of their motion for summary judgment, NCI and Krabseth submitted an affidavit • of their attorney supplemented by various documents, including minutes from corporate meetings and excerpts from depósi-tions. This is allowable under Rule 56(e), N.D.R.Civ.P. “The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits.” Id. However, “[supporting and opposing affidavits must be made on personal knowledge, set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and show affirmatively that the affi-ant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.” Id. In light of the motion for summary judgment with a supplemented affidavit, Swenson could not rest “upon the mere allegations or denials of [her] pleading, but [her] response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. NCI and Krabseth assert that Swenson failed to comply with Rule 56(e) by not coming forward with any admissible, competent evidence, and therefore any evidence she submitted on appeal should not be considered by this Court.
Unfortunately, there is no transcript of the summary judgment hearing in the record for this case. However, along with her response and brief opposing summary judgment, Swenson submitted an affidavit of her attorney to the trial court. Attached thereto were significant parts of her testimony given at a deposition, excerpts from Rick Wallace’s deposition testimony, and a letter from Swenson to the President of NCI. We conclude, without reciting the essence of the response and affidavits, that the mode of response was sufficient.
This determination does not end our inquiry on the issue, however, as NCI and Krabseth assert that even if Swenson’s material submitted to the trial court was in compliance as to form with Rule 56(e), it still failed to prevent summary judgment because it did not raise genuine issues of material fact.4 We disagree.
[180]*180In reviewing Swenson’s evidence provided to the trial court, we find three men receiving higher pay than Swenson. The first man, Rick Wallace, received $25,000 per year as the office manager, and Swen-son received approximately $20,000 per year in that same position. Swenson does not dispute this pay difference because, “I was not, um, going to be doing the technical part of it, the assisting the agents if they had technical questions.”
The second man, Tom Hove, was hired as a program specialist before Swenson terminated her employment with NCI. Concurrent with Hove’s hiring, Swenson was demoted and received a pay decrease from $10.00 per hour to $6.00 per hour ($1.50 per hour less than she received before in the clerk/secretary position). Swenson had “no questions or qualms or anything about [Hove’s] salary and his wages.” She said: “I was very unqualified for that job and I knew that. That was assistance to the agents.” Her concern is with the dramatic decrease in her pay while retaining many of the same responsibilities she had prior to the pay decrease. Additionally, according to her, Krabseth expressed his views on wages for women in this fashion:
“I distinctly remember him saying something about, ‘I know I can hire a woman cheaper, but I want a man.’ ”
“I’d say, ‘Why a man?’ ‘Because a woman should not get $10 an hour.’ ”
“I told him that, if he did demote me down to six, something like — how did the conversation go? He had already told me, you know, that he didn’t feel a woman needed ten dollars an hour, you know, to survive and stuff. It should be a man.”
“[H]e said he was going to be hiring a man; that he’d be starting the man at, ‘A higher wage than you’re getting because he’s a man.’ ”
“And he kept telling me that, you know, men needed more, you know, supporting the family and — and that he just didn’t see that a woman should get $10 an hour.”
The third man, Terry Skarphol, was hired as a computer operator one month before Swenson terminated her employment with NCI. Swenson asserts that Krabseth did not inform her of this new position, so she could not apply for it. Skarphol was also hired at a rate higher than Swenson. Additionally, Krabseth offered Skarphol training for the job. Swenson argues that she was qualified for that job, did not need training as to NCI’s existing computer system, and would have welcomed any further training available. Swenson claims that Krabseth hired Skarphol and paid him a higher rate because he is a man.
All of these allegations are material facts in the equal pay claim. NCI and Krabseth assert that the three men were much more qualified, thereby justifying higher salaries. Furthermore, NCI and Krabseth argue that Swenson’s position as office manager was phased out during the reorganization, thereby justifying her demotion to clerk/secretary. Because there are material facts in dispute as to the equal pay claim under Chapter 34-06.1, N.D.C.C., it was improper for the trial court to grant summary judgment on this issue. We therefore reverse this part of the judgment and remand for a determination of Swenson’s equal pay claim.5
[181]*181III.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Swenson’s last issue on appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. We hold that summary judgment was improper as to this issue, and reverse and remand.
The leading case in North Dakota on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is Muchow v. Lindblad, 435 N.W.2d 918 (N.D.1989). In our discussion of the tort, we enumerated its three elements.
“There are three elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Section 46 [of the Restatement (Second) of Torts]: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct that is (2) intentional or reckless and that causes (3) severe emotional distress.”
Id. at 923-24.
In both the trial court brief in support of summary judgment and their appellate brief to this Court, NCI and Krabseth argue that summary judgment was proper because Swenson completely failed to establish the first element of the tort — extreme and outrageous conduct. “At best, the alleged actions by Krabseth expressed a preference for a male worker. Such comments at their worst could be viewed as insults to females.” The trial court granted summary judgment for NCI and Krab-seth because it agreed with them “that the errant conduct alleged is not so outrageous and extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious.”
In Muchow, we examined authority defining extreme and outrageous conduct.
“Comment d. of the Reporter’s Notes of § 46 of the Restatement describes the substance of the element of extreme and outrageous conduct and makes clear that it is narrowly limited to outrageous conduct which exceeds ‘all possible bounds of decency’:
‘The cases thus far decided have found liability only where the defendant’s conduct has been extreme and outrageous. It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that [the defendant] has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that [the defendant’s] conduct has been characterized by ‘malice,’ or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been 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. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse [that member’s] resentment against the actor, and lead [the member] to exclaim, ‘Outrageous!’
‘The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. The rough edges of our society are still in need of a good deal of filing down, and in the meantime plaintiffs must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind. There is no occasion for the law to intervene in every case where some one’s feelings are hurt.’ ”
Muchow v. Lindblad, 435 N.W.2d at 924.
The plaintiffs in Muchow were family members of a woman whose body was found in the river. They brought an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the investigating police offi[182]*182cer. The officer had previously arrested the woman for shoplifting and had investigated a theft of money from her. At the time of her arrest, she told the officer that her family did not love her and that she was going to kill herself by “walking in the river.” Id. at 919. After discovery of her body in the river, the officer did not conduct any serious investigation, despite obvious signs of foul play. He assumed that the woman committed suicide and told the coroner the same; therefore, an autopsy was not immediately performed. Further, he described the grim details of the woman’s suicide to the plaintiffs, telling them that her body was found nude, when in fact her body was partially clothed. After learning objective evidence of foul play, the plaintiffs questioned the officer about the cause of the woman’s death. The officer then accused the plaintiffs of questioning him merely to assuage their feelings of guilt for not having loved and supported the woman. Approximately one month after the woman’s death, the plaintiffs had her body exhumed, and an autopsy was performed establishing that the woman had died from strangulation.
Although we agreed with the plaintiffs that the officer’s investigation might have been negligent, we did not agree that his actions could “reasonably be regarded as outrageous in character and extreme in degree so as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Id. at 924. We sustained the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of the complaint of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Muchow facts and holding are illustrative of the rigorous standard we apply when defining “extreme and outrageous conduct.” Such conduct is not easy to demonstrate.
When faced with a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, where one side is asserting lack of extreme and outrageous conduct, the trial court has an important and primary role.
“It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant’s conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery, or whether it is necessarily so. Where reasonable [people] may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the control of the court, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct has been sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability.”
Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. h (1965)).
Muchow and the instant case are distinguishable in a very fundamental way. In Muchow, the defendant had been told by the decedent herself that she wanted to walk into the river to end her life. It was not outrageous for the defendant, as investigating officer, to believe that she had carried out her plan when her body was found in the river. There was a basis for his assumptions and actions. However, when viewing the present facts in the light most favorable to Swenson, as we must do when considering her appeal from a summary judgment dismissing her complaint, we conclude that reasonable persons could differ in their conclusion as to whether or not the conduct of NCI and Krabseth was extreme and outrageous.
According to Swenson, during her employment as clerk/secretary, her work product was impeccable, with some of the lowest report error rates in the nation. Furthermore, while Swenson was in the office manager position, Krabseth allegedly told her that he never had any complaints about her performance, and that he was not demoting her because of her work. Swenson also asserts that Krabseth, as her employer, discriminated against her and oppressed her repeatedly, not because of the quality of her work, but because of her gender. She says that he continually reminded her that he was pursuing a plan to replace her with men. She also claims that he said that men were worth more pay because they were men and had to support families, and that when Swenson pointed out to Krabseth that she was single with a family to support, it did not seem relevant to him.
Swenson maintains that upon reorganizing the office structure of NCI, Krabseth [183]*183demoted her to her old position of clerk/secretary, paying her less than she previously made in that position, while simultaneously hiring a man at a higher rate than she received in the office manager position. Initially, Swenson suffered a 40% loss in wages.6 After the passage of a short period of time, Krabseth hired a second young man for a job which Swenson claims she was more than qualified to fill. She asserts that Krabseth failed to give her notice of the position, and thus she could not apply. According to Swenson, the second man hired also received more pay than she received. Swenson asserts that she was then relegated to answering the phone, typing, and filing for two men in positions that her former position had been equal to or greater than in status.
In addition to all of these factors, during the period in which Krabseth was reorganizing, he allegedly isolated Swenson by not talking to her, by refusing to set up meetings with her to discuss her employment with NCI, and by virtually avoiding any contact with her whatsoever. Furthermore, Swenson claims that Krabseth was well aware of her unstable emotional condition, which had developed during her employment at NCI. She contends that she experienced so much stress at work that it became necessary for her to request permission to attend AA meetings during her lunch hour so that she could remain alcohol-free.
Considering the facts as presented by Swenson, we believe the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of NCI and Krabseth on the issue of extreme and outrageous conduct. When the facts are judged under the “reasonable person” standard, we cannot, as a matter of law, conclude that reasonable persons would not differ as to whether or not the conduct complained of was extreme and outrageous.
In reaching our decision, we are fully aware that a number of jurisdictions might hold contrary to our decision today. These are the courts that have rigidly applied the test of extreme and outrageous conduct to situations of discrimination in employment settings, requiring much more than just discriminatory conduct.7 However, there [184]*184are also numerous jurisdictions which have held that evidence of most any type of discriminatory conduct may be sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment brought on the issue of the lack of extreme and outrageous conduct.8
We are cognizant that the numerous cases cited in footnotes 7 and 8 deal primarily with racial or age discrimination rather than sexual discrimination. However, we believe the cases are still pertinent to our analysis of what is required to prevent a summary judgment dismissal of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress when one is considering if a jury could disagree as to whether or not the alleged facts disclose extreme and outrageous conduct.
We are also aware that the discriminatory language allegedly used by Krabseth is somewhat milder than the language used in several of the cases cited in footnotes 7 and 8. See, e.g., Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 152 A.D.2d 169, 548 N.Y.S.2d 513 (1989); Franklin v. Portland Community College, 100 Or.App. 465, 787 P.2d 489 (1990); Gomez v. Hug, 7 Kan.App.2d 603, 645 P.2d 916 (1982). In the facts asserted by Swenson, Krabseth did not use expletives or call her names. Contrarily, in some of the cases previously cited, the denigration was couched in more colorful terms. However, Krabseth’s alleged statements were blunt and blatant; their meaning was unambiguous. He, according to Swenson, minced no words in explaining his feelings and plan to Swenson. The fact that he did not swear or resort to name-calling does not affect the allegation that he acted in a discriminatory manner. The fact that he “made [his] statement politely does not negate its effect on [Swenson].” Johnson v. Hale, 940 F.2d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir.1991) (although this case did not involve a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, it did involve a comparable claim for punitive damages under § 1982).
[185]*185Furthermore, there are several eases cited in footnote 8 which involve similar facts to those claimed by Swenson, lacking name-calling and expletives, that found the discriminatory conduct to be an issue for the jury on the question of extreme and outrageous conduct. See Dreith v. National Football League, 111 F.Supp. 832 (Colo.1991); Guzman v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 156 F.Supp. 994 (Tex.1990); Butler v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 690 F.Supp. 424 (Md.1987); Robinson v. Hewlett-Packard Corp., 183 Cal.App.3d 1108, 228 Cal.Rptr. 591 (1986).
However, in reaching our decision in this case, we do not focus exclusively on the discriminatory conduct and words alleged by Swenson; nor do we base our conclusion solely on those facts alone. We also view and consider the context and background in which those words and conduct occurred. Thus, it is not the alleged facts of discrimination alone, but the combination of those facts with other facts alleged by Swenson, involving two additional elements, which influence our conclusion in this case.
For the first additional element, it is important to remember that throughout the entire scenario presented by Swenson, she was a subordinate employee to Krab-seth. The position of the parties is relevant when examining the facts for instances of extreme and outrageous conduct.
“There are some situations in which courts recognize that the parties’ relationship to each other can help determine whether the acts complained of are outrageous. It is only natural that a defendant’s position of power over a plaintiff may enhance his or her ability to do harm. The Restatement [(Second) of Torts] recognizes this reality in § 46, Comment e:
‘The extreme and outrageous character of the conduct may arise from an abuse by the actor of a position, or a relation with the other, which gives him actual or apparent authority over the other, or power to affect his interests. Thus an attempt to extort money by a threat of arrest may make the actor liable even where the arrest, or the threat alone, would not do so. In particular police officers, school authorities, landlords, and collecting creditors have been held liable for extreme abuse of their position. Even in such cases, however, the actor has not been held liable for mere insults, indignities, or annoyances that are not extreme or outrageous.’
Although the Restatement does not specifically say that employer-employee relationships are governed by this rule, [many] courts have held or implied that they are.”
Kentucky Fried Chicken Nat'l Management Co. v. Weathersby, 326 Md. 663, 607 A.2d 8, 14-15 (1992). For cases dealing with discriminatory conduct in the workplace that apply this Restatement comment to the employer/employee relationship, see, e.g.: Franklin v. Portland Community College, 181 P.2d 489; Robinson v. Hewlett-Packard Corp., 228 Cal.Rptr. 591; Gomez v. Hug, 645 P.2d 916; Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932, 160 Cal.Rptr. 141, 603 P.2d 58 (1979); Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 88 Wash.2d 735, 565 P.2d 1173 (1977); Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc., 2 Cal.3d 493, 86 Cal.Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216 (1970).
While we are not saying that employers should be subject to a lesser standard of conduct for this tort, we believe that the relationship of employer/employee is an important factor to consider. In Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc., 54 Or.App. 480, 635 P.2d 657 (1981), although not involving discriminatory conduct, but involving an employer/employee relationship (or supervisory/subservient relationship), the court said: “An employer has even more authority over an employee [than a landlord has over a tenant], who, by the nature of the relationship, is subject to the direction and control of the employer and may be discharged for any or no reason, absent an agreement restricting that authority. Clearly, that relationship is not an arm’s length one between strangers.”9 Id. 635 P.2d at 661.
[186]*186The second additional element which is significant is Krabseth’s alleged knowledge of Swenson’s deteriorating emotional condition. That knowledge influences our view of the conduct alleged.
“Comment f [Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46] states that the extreme and outrageous character of the conduct ‘may arise from the actor’s knowledge that the other is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress, by reason of some physical or mental condition or peculiarity.’ The comment continues:
‘The conduct may become heartless, flagrant, and outrageous when the actor proceeds in the face of such knowledge, where it would not be so if he did not know.’ ”
Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560, 380 A.2d 611, 615 (1977). For cases involving discriminatory conduct in the workplace that consider this factor, see Woods v. Graphic Communications, 925 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir.1991); Robinson v. Hewlett-Packard Corp., 228 Cal.Rptr. 591; Agarwal v. Johnson, 603 P.2d 58; Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc., 468 P.2d 216. Thus, knowledge of a plaintiff’s susceptibility to distress, while not per se conclusive of extreme and outrageous conduct, is relevant in determining whether the conduct is extreme and outrageous.
We consider the above factors because it is important not to view the alleged extreme and outrageous conduct in a vacuum. “In determining whether conduct is extreme and outrageous, it should not be considered in a sterile setting, detached’ from the surroundings in which it occurred.” Harris v. Jones, 380 A.2d at 615. Instead of applying a bright-line rule, each set of facts should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Franklin v. Portland Community College, 787 P.2d at 493. Where there is a chance that reasonable minds might differ, the plaintiff has the right to present the case to the jury. Gomez v. Hug, 645 P.2d at 922.
As previously implied, we believe our decision in this case will be praised by some jurisdictions, and much criticized by others. However, we believe the more enlightened view to be that of the courts we have cited with approval. This view, which discourages the intentional infliction of emotional distress, is more persuasive and better attuned to our changing social conditions and awareness. “Changing sensitivity in society alters the acceptability of former [conduct].” Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 565 P.2d at 1177. See also Woods v. Graphic Communications, 925 F.2d at 1204; Robinson v. Hewlett-Packard Corp., 228 Cal.Rptr. at 604; Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc., 468 P.2d at 219.
Furthermore, in modern-day America, we realize that not only are all people created equal, but that the trend in the courts, including ours, is to expand upon that principle. See, e.g., Butz v. World Wide, Inc., 492 N.W.2d 88, 90 n. 2 (N.D.1992) (wives, as well as husbands, may bring actions for loss of spousal consortium); Hastings v. James River Aerie No. 2337, Etc., 246 N.W.2d 747, 749-52 (N.D.1976) (it would be unconstitutional to treat women differently from men in an action for loss of spousal consortium); Moses v. Burleigh County, 438 N.W.2d 186, 188-92 (N.D.1989) (the terms of an employment contract cannot constitute a waiver of or excuse for unlawful gender and racial discrimination); Briese v. Briese, 325 N.W.2d 245, 247-49 (N.D.1982) (there is an economic partnership between a husband and a wife during marriage).
In reversing the summary judgment dismissal of this issue, we are not espousing the view that every instance of discrimination equals or constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct as a matter of law. Instead, we are saying that in this case it is unclear whether the alleged conduct is extreme and outrageous, or, in other words, we believe that reasonable persons could disagree as to that issue. Therefore, it is a question for the jury and an improper issue for summary judgment. We accordingly [187]*187reverse the judgment as to this issue, and remand for trial.10
For the foregoing reasons we affirm the District Court for Williams County on the statutory gender discrimination issue, we reverse the summary judgment and remand on the issues of equal pay under the statute and the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
MESCHKE, J., concurs in the result.
Justice J. PHILIP JOHNSON, who was a member of the Court when this case was heard, did not participate in this decision.
Justice NEUMANN and Justice SANDSTROM, not being members of the Court when this case was heard, did not participate in this decision.