that her supervisor had treated her unfairly and yelled at her on numerous occasions, ADC presented evidence that (1) Coleman had made frequent and excessive errors shortly after she began working, and did not improve after the errors were brought to her attention and she was counseled; (2) Coleman was given additional duties and on-the-job training, but made frequent mistakes in performing those duties as well; and (3) Coleman’s initial assignment was that given to all new Records employees. We conclude Coleman’s evidence was insufficient to show constructive discharge, a hostile work environment, or any adverse employment action; rather, the evidence showed her treatment by supervisors was due to her poor performance. See Ross v. Douglas County, 234 F.3d 391, 395-96 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Breeding v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 164
holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding that the burden of establishing prima facie case of discriminatory treatment may be satisfied by minimal showing holding that denial of the opportunity to work overtime is an adverse employment action sufficient to make out a prima facie case under title vii holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo holding prima facie case for hostile work environment includes showing of severe conduct that affected term condition or privilege of employment