(citation omitted). That said, however, “A constructive discharge arises only when a reasonable person would find the conditions of employment intolerable. To act reasonably, an employee has an obligation not to assume the worst and not to jump to conclusions too quickly.” Id. (citations omitted). Thus, “An employee who quits without giving [his] employer a reasonable chance to work out a problem is not constructively discharged.” West v. Marion Merrell Dow, Inc., 54 F.3d 493, 498 (8th Cir.1995). Here, the plaintiff has presented enough evidence to permit a reasonable inference that a reasonable person would have found the conditions of employment so intolerable that his or her only recourse was to resign. See Delph v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co., 130 F.3d 349, 356-57 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d
holding that a plaintiffs psychological distress was not vicarious in a hostile work environment case where she experienced her workplace as hostile by reason of the alleged harassment of other women out of her presence holding that the allegations of plaintiffs coemployees of sexual harassment by manager were irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of the alleged harassment recognizing that a constructive discharge claim and a hostile work environment claim are not equivalent because a constructive discharge claim imposes a higher standard holding that a hostile work environment was sufficient to constitute constructive discharge because the harassment was expressed by the plaintiffs supervisor and the offending language was not only used in the plaintiffs presence but was directed at him holding that a claim of constructive discharge requires a showing of harassment that is more severe and pervasive than that required to show a hostile work environment