The Hon orable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 1 West ern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition b y consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1829

___________ Edith Joan (Roberts) Selby, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, * * Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: September 17, 1997 Filed: October 7, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, an d MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Edi thJoan (Roberts) Selby appeals from the district court's order grantin g 1 Sh elter Mutual Insurance Company & s summary judgment motion in this se x discrimination action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196 4, 42 U.S.C.-2-

§§ 2000e-2000e-17, and the M issouri Human Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 213.010- 213.137 (1994). We affirm.
In 1993, Selby quit her job with Shelter and filed a charge with the Equa l Employment Opportunity Commission and the Missouri Commission on Human Rig hts, claiming that she was constructively discharged based on her gender. Follo wing receipt of her right-to-sue letter, she filed this constructive discharge actio n in the district court.
After t he completion of discovery, Shelter moved for summary judgment. The evidence showed Selby began working for Shelter in 1968. In 1992, after the senior vice president of her department had recommended Selby as a candidate to succee d him, Don McCubbin, a male employee from another department, was given th e position. Selby alleged that after McC ubbin & s promotion, she was required to perform a significant number of the new vice president & s duties, in addition to her own. Selby also claimed she was given a lo wer percent raise than a male colleague, and her travel opportunities were restricted. Selby resigned over one year after she was denied the promotion.
The d istrict court granted Shelter & s summary judgment motion, findin g insuffici ent

evidence to support a finding that Selby & s working conditions wer e intolerable or that they worsened because of her gender. To prevail on her constructive discha rge claim, Selby was required to show that Shelter “deliberately create[d] intolerable working condition s” to force her to quit. See Tidw ell v. Meyer & s Bakeries, Inc. , 93 F.3d 490, 494 (8th Cir. 1996). While Selb y agreed Shelter did not want her to quit, she could meet her burden by showing he r resignation was “a reasonably foreseeable consequence of [Shelter & s] discriminatory action s.” See Hukkanen v. International Union of Operating Eng & rs , 3 F.3d 281, 285 (8th Ci r. 1993); see also Gartman v. Gencorp Inc. , Nos. 96-3248/3466, slip op. at 6 (8th Cir. July 16, 1997) (citing with approval Chambers v. American Trans Air, Inc. ,-3-

17 F.3d 998, 1005 (7th Cir. 1994), in which Seventh Circuit stated that, to b e actionable under Tit

le VII, working conditions must be intolerable in a discriminatory manner).
Evenassuming that some of Selby & s adverse working conditions were genderrelate d, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that a reason able person in Selby & s circumstances would have been compelled to quit , esp ecially because the undisputed evidence indicated that before submitting he r res ignationletter, Selby did not complain to decision-makers about being denied a promotion, being required to perfor m McCubbin & s duties, or receiving a lower percent r aise. See West v. Marion Merrell Dow, Inc. , 54 F.3d 493, 497, 498 (8th Cir. 1995) (what is “intolerable” is judged by objective standard; no constructive discharge unless employer given reasonable opportunity to resolve problem); Tidwe ll , 93 F.3d at 495-97 (denial of promotion, combined with dissatisfaction with work assignment, wer e insufficient

to uphold constructive discharge judgment, particularly where employe r was given no opportunity to remedy situation); Summit v. S-B Power Tool , No. 96

- 3814, slip op. at 3, 10-11 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 1997) (insufficient evidence for plaintiff & s constructive dis charge verdict, where plaintiff was denied promotion, was transferred to undesirable shift requiring supervi sion of temporary employees and use of defective parts, and was threatened with discharge); cf. Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ,10 7 F.3d 568, 57 4 (8th Cir. 1997) (constructive discharge verdict upheld where employer aware of blatant and repeated abus e and sexual harassment of female plaintiff by male super visory employees throughout her employment, plaintiff & s repeated complaint s incr eased as harassment became more abusive, and management “generally ignored” complaints). Accordingly, we affirm.-4-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.