Cherry was an employee for Menards from approximately Juntil June 22, 1998. Nancy Cherry is a thirty-three year old African-American female. Finally, the court will turn to its legal analysis of Menards's motion. Next, the court will set forth the standards applicable to a motion for summary judgment. The court will begin with the factual background established by the summary judgment record.

Reinschmidt of Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, Iowa. Menards was represented by John Werner of Grefe & Sidney, Des Moines, Iowa. On May 23, 2000, the court heard oral arguments on Menards's Motion for Summary Judgment. Presently before the court, is Menards's March 27, 2000, Motion for Summary Judgment. Menards answered the complaint on June 24, 1999, generally denying Cherry's claims and asserting various defenses, including the two prong affirmative defense outlined in Burlington Indus., Inc.

In her complaint, Cherry alleges three causes of action: (1) a claim of a sexually hostile work environment (2) a claim of a racially hostile work environment and (3) a claim of retaliation. ('Menards'), seeking damages resulting from her alleged constructive discharge. On April 21, 1999, plaintiff Nancy Cherry ('Cherry') filed a complaint against her former employer, defendant Menard, Inc. Additionally, the court is called upon to resolve a critically important question triggered by the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense analysis: Whether a constructive discharge constitutes a 'tangible employment action' as defined in Ellerth and Faragher? Because plaintiff's allegations of sexual and racial harassment are directed against not only her non-supervisory co-workers, but also against her supervisors, the court must consider the affirmative defense set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Burlington Indus., Inc. The employer has moved for summary judgment on all counts. The plaintiff-employee further alleges that the hostile work environment and the retaliation caused her constructive discharge. В§ 2000e et seq., by subjecting her to a hostile work environment and then retaliating against her for engaging in protected activity to remedy the alleged harassment. *1164 In this employment discrimination lawsuit, the plaintiff-employee alleges that her former employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Cherry's evidence of constructive discharge. Employer liability for non-supervisory co-worker racial harassment. Employer liability for supervisory racial harassment. Cherry's showing of the effect on her employment. Cherry's Racial Harassment claim-hostile work environment. Employer liability for non-supervisory co-worker sexual harassment. Application of the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. Constructive discharge is a tangible employment action as defined in Ellerth and Faragher. The Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. Employer liability for supervisory sexual harassment.

Cherry's Sexual Harassment Claimhostile work environment. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT John Werner, Grefe & Sidney, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant. Reinschmidt, Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.

Menards employee handbook