Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01693/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01693-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1693

___________

Jamie Hamilton, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Onsite Companies, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 2005

Filed: January 26, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jamie Hamilton worked as a contract employee for Onsite Companies, Inc., a

nationwide temporary staffing company, at Hypercom Horizon, Inc. in their customer

service department. Hamilton claimed she was raped at work by another Onsite

contract employee who was assigned to Hypercom’s shipping area. The coworker,

who had become friends with Hamilton, claimed the incident was consensual. After

Hamilton reported the incident, Onsite and Hypercom conducted investigations.

Hypercom assured Hamilton the coworker would not work for Hypercom again.

Onsite also removed the coworker from the worksite and reprimanded him. Hamilton

resigned from both Hypercom and Onsite two weeks later. 

Appellate Case: 04-1693 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Entry ID: 1859656 
*

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

Two years later, Hamilton brought this employment discrimination case

claiming hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation. The district

court*

 granted summary judgment to Onsite, concluding Onsite’s response to

Hamilton’s complaint was prompt and adequate as a matter of law, and its

investigation ended the harassment. The district court also held Hamilton did not

make a case for constructive discharge. Hamilton appeals.

To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment sexual harassment

by a nonsupervisory coworker, Hamilton must show, among other things, that Onsite

knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial

action. Meriwether v. Caraustar Packaging Co., 326 F.3d 990, 993-94 (8th Cir. 2003).

Hamilton contends the district court committed error in concluding Onsite’s

investigation was prompt and adequate. We disagree. Onsite interviewed Hamilton’s

coworker four days after she reported the incident. During Hamilton’s interview the

next day, Onsite asked Hamilton how she wanted the matter resolved, and she stated

she would like to continue working at Hypercom, but did not want to work with the

coworker again. Within four business days of Hamilton’s complaint, Onsite resolved

the investigation and complied with Hamilton’s request for resolution, even though

the investigation’s findings were inconclusive. Further, Onsite’s actions effectively

ended the harassment because the coworker quit his job with Onsite after his

interview and thus was never placed at another client site after the incident.

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Hamilton had to show Onsite took

adverse action against her because she filed a charge of harassment. Hamilton claims

her resignation amounted to a constructive discharge, and the district court committed

error in concluding otherwise. Hamilton stated she resigned because she was

uncomfortable working at Hypercom and because she was afraid she might be

Appellate Case: 04-1693 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Entry ID: 1859656 
-3-

reassigned to work with the coworker at some point in the future. Hamilton did not

communicate her concerns to Onsite, however. Hamilton also failed to give Onsite

a change to address her concerns and refused Onsite’s offer to find her another

assignment. We agree with the district court that there was no constructive discharge

as a matter of law because Hamilton presented no evidence that Onsite’s actions were

intended to force her to quit or that it was reasonably foreseeable to Onsite that

Hamilton would quit as a consequence of its action. Hamilton also failed to allow

Onsite a reasonable chance to resolve the situation before resigning. See Turner v.

Honeywell Fed. Mfg. & Tech., LLC, 336 F.3d 716, 724 (8th Cir. 2003). 

We thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Onsite.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1693 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Entry ID: 1859656