Because the allegations were insufficient to show outrageous intentional conduct that resulted in severe emotional distress. If you were the judge, in whose favor would you rule? Why? [Kiwanuka v. Bakilana, 844 F. Supp.2d 107 (D. D.C. 2012)] (See Intentional Torts against Persons.)

See explaination(the question is not complete, but since we have the citation in the question,we will work on something).

Explanation:

The case of Kiwanuka against Bakilana, 844 F.Supp.2d 107 (D.D.C. 2012) was a case concerning or a case that deals with infliction of emotional distress which is intentional. Check below for the reason for the case.

The plaintiff, in person of Kiwanuka, full name -- Sophia Kiwanuka signed a contract with the defendant, Margareth Bakilana to work for her in the United States of America. The plaintiff, left Tanzania to the United States of America to go and work for the defendant. According to Sophia Kiwanuka, she claimed that the defendant (Margareth Bakilana) abused her, make her to work more hours than the the regular hours signed in the contract, and also, the defendant seized her passport which she can use to travel back to Tanzania where she came from.

(NB: she came from Tanzania to work in the United States of America).

The defendant, from the question says and I quote from the question, ''the allegations were insufficient to show outrageous intentional conduct that resulted in severe emotional distress''.

==> MY CONCLUSION: If I were to be the Judge I will certainly rule in favour of the Plaintiff, that is Sophia Kiwanuka because the allegations were enough for to prove that the defendant intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the plaintiff. All the threatening, the abuse, breech of contract and so on amount to the offence committed by the defendant.

quid pro quo sexual harassment typically involves an employee being pressured by a superior to provide sexual favors in order to avoid being fired or demoted, or in order to get a promotion, raise or perk.