Case Name: Ellen WALLINGSFORD, Appellant, v. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-09-24
Citations: 414 S.W.3d 577
Docket Number: No. ED 98975
Parties: Ellen WALLINGSFORD, Appellant, v. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., KURT S. ODENWALD, J„ and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 414
Pages: 577–577

Head Matter:
Ellen WALLINGSFORD, Appellant, v. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, Respondent.
No. ED 98975.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Sept. 24, 2013.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 5, 2013.
Application for Transfer Denied Dec. 24, 2013.
John E. Toma, Jr. and Melissa Marie Zensen, Co-Counsel, Toma Zensen LLC, Gulf Breeze, FL, James R. Dowd, Co-Counsel, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
Terry Lee Potter, Husch & Blackwell, LP, Kimberley Joy Mathis, Co-Counsel, Laura Beth Staley, Co-Counsel, Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., KURT S. ODENWALD, J„ and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ellen Wallingsford (Wallingsford) appeals from the judgment in favor of the City of Maplewood and against Wallings-ford on her claims of hostile work environment and constructive discharge under the Missouri Human Rights Act. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).