Pragmatic reasoning, inferring intended meaning beyond literal semantics, underpins everyday communication yet remains difficult for large language models. We present the Contextual Emotional Inference (CEI) Benchmark: 300 human-validated scenarios for evaluating how well LLMs disambiguate pragmatically complex utterances. Each scenario pairs a situational context and speaker-listener roles (with explicit power relations) against an ambiguous utterance. The dataset covers five pragmatic subtypes (sarcasm/irony, mixed signals, strategic politeness, passive aggression, deflection/misdirection) drawn from workplace, family, social, and service settings, with three power configurations (peer, higher-to-lower, lower-to-higher). Three trained annotators independently labeled every scenario. Inter-annotator agreement (Fleiss' kappa = 0.06-0.25 by subtype) is low but expected: pragmatic inference admits multiple valid readings, and the disagreement itself is informative. We describe our annotation methodology, including a 4-level quality control pipeline that combines automated statistical checks with expert adjudication. CEI is released under CC-BY-4.0.