Rester v. Media, et al., No. 12-3934 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and Arkansas state law, alleging various claims against her former employers. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employers on her claims of sex discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation. The court concluded that plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she suffered an adverse employment action and that she received different treatment because of her sex; considering the totality of the circumstances, plaintiff failed to establish that an incident related to a workplace disagreement permeated the workplace and thus had not established a prima facie case of hostile work environment; plaintiff failed to establish a case of constructive discharge where, inter alia, the record reflected that the employers sought to retain her as an employee; and plaintiff failed to establish a case of retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employers on plaintiff's claims.
Court Description: Civil Case - employment discrimination. Following a workplace disagreement, at which Rester's supervisor screamed and yelled at her and physically prevented her from leaving, Rester resigned and sued for sex discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge and retaliation. District court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed. Rester did not suffered am adverse employment action or show her supervisor's actions were motivated by her sex; the singular incident did not rise to the level of severe and pervasive conduct to support a hostile work environment claim; absent support for her hostile work environment claim, her constructive discharge claim fails; absent an adverse employment action, the retaliation claim fails.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.