” Id. (quoting Tuggle v. Mangan, 348 F.3d 714, 720 (8th Cir.2003))). Here, months, and indeed years, of intervening events separated Plaintiffs pre-August 2008 alleged incidents of discrimination and Plaintiffs termination. Further, it appears that the majority of the issues Plaintiff encountered stemmed from typical inter-office politics and personality conflicts rather than retaliation or hostile work environment. And while the alleged incidents, including performance-related criticisms, may have been frustrating for Plaintiff, the Court does not find that these alleged incidents, either alone or in combination, amount to an actionable hostile work environment claim that can survive summary judgment. See Devin v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc., 491 F.3d 778, 788 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); abrogated on other grounds by Torgerson, 643
recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 recognizing that the elements of title vii sexually hostile work environment claims apply to icra sexually hostile work environment claims holding that allegations that plaintiff was denied a route assistant was unfairly disciplined paid less than the male workers was not allowed to expense pay phone calls and was required to make inventory changes on the computer at best amounted to a frustrating work environment rather than an objectively hostile work environment holding that allegations of work reassignment schedule changes increased scrutiny of plaintiffs work and a supervisors stray remarks were insufficient to establish hostile work environment holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive