In Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338, the Court that the employee's emotional distress claims were barred where an employer "berated and humiliated a plaintiff, criticized his job performance, and insulted him with profanities on a regular basis." (Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338, 366-367.) The Court stated that "an employer's intentional misconduct in connection with actions that are a normal part of the employment relationship . . . resulting in emotional injury is considered to be encompassed within the compensation bargain, even if the misconduct could be characterized as 'manifestly unfair, outrageous, harassment, or intended to cause emotional disturbance.' Workers' compensation ordinarily provides the exclusive remedy for such an injury. " (Ibid.) The Court explained that, "the misconduct all occurred in the workplace and involved criticisms of job performance or other conflicts arising from the employment. Although the misconduct was offensive and clearly inappropriate, we believe that it all arose from risks encompassed within the compensation bargain. This does not by any means excuse the misconduct, but compels the conclusion that, absent a violation of a fundamental public policy, which has not been shown, the workers' compensation exclusivity rule applies to any emotional injury arising from the described misconduct." (Id. at pp. 367-368.)