Opinion ID: 791723
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constructive Discharge Claim Against Nexstar

Text: 25 Davis alleges that her transfer amounted to a constructive discharge because the schedule conflicted with her UPS job. To show `constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show more than just a Title VII violation by her employer.' Breeding v. Arthur J. Gallagher and Co., 164 F.3d 1151, 1159 (8th Cir.1999) (quoting Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp., 156 F.3d 884, 890 (8th Cir.1998)). A constructive discharge occurs when an employee resigns after the employer has created an intolerable working environment in a deliberate attempt to compel such a resignation. Tatum v. City of Berkeley, 408 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir.2005). 26 In this case, Davis cannot show that her transfer constituted an adverse employment action or that Nexstar created an intolerable working environment. This court has stated: 27 An adverse employment action is a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment disadvantage. Termination, reduction in pay or benefits, and changes in employment that significantly affect an employee's future career prospects meet this standard, but minor changes in working conditions that merely inconvenience an employee or alter an employee's work responsibilities do not. 28 Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 476 (8th Cir.2005) (internal citations omitted). The elimination of Davis's teleprompter position and her transfer to a camera operator position involved only minor changes in working conditions and no reduction in pay or benefits. In fact, Davis admitted that the camera operator position was perceived as a higher-level position. Further, as part of the transfer Davis was given a seven percent raise. Thus, the transfer did not constitute an adverse employment action. 29 Further, Nexstar did not create an intolerable work environment. There is no indication Nexstar acted with the intention of forcing Davis to resign or that she intended to do so as a result of Nexstar's actions. Davis admits she did not have any problems with her coworkers, Thompson, or her treatment by Chester. Her only complaint was that she had to work the evening shift, which conflicted with her job at UPS. When Davis informed Chester that the new position conflicted with her position at UPS, Chester advised her to check with UPS and get back to him to see if an arrangement could be made to accommodate Davis, UPS, and the station. Rather than force her out, Chester's actions demonstrate a desire to work with Davis to resolve the issue so that she could remain at the station. 30 Davis quit rather than work with KARK-TV to find a solution that resolved her concerns. An employee who quits without giving [her] employer a reasonable chance to work out a problem has not been constructively discharged. Tidwell v. Meyer's Bakeries, Inc., 93 F.3d 490, 494 (8th Cir.1996). Accordingly, Nexstar's actions in transferring Davis do not constitute a constructive discharge.