Jamie Hamilton v. OnSite Co., Inc. , 122 F. App'x 283 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                     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    Onsite Companies, Inc.,                *      [UNPUBLISHED]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.
    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
    *
    The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    -2-
    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.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-1693

Citation Numbers: 122 F. App'x 283

Judges: Wollman, McMillian, Fagg

Filed Date: 1/26/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024