P.R., Inc., 304 F.3d at 28). Thus, that a plaintiff was subjected to the “ordinary slings and arrows that workers routinely encounter in a hard, cold world” is insufficient to state a claim for constructive discharge. De La Vega v. San Juan Star, Inc., 377 F.3d at 117 (quoting Lee-Crespo v. Schering-Plough Del Caribe Inc., 354 F.3d 34, 45 (1st Cir.2003) (quoting Suárez v. Pueblo Int’l, Inc., 229 F.3d 49, 54 (1st Cir.2000))). Because plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for her hostile work environment claim, the court needs not address her constructive discharge claim. See Acosta v. Harbor Holdings & Operations, Inc., 674 F.Supp.2d at 362 (quoting Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. at 149, 124 S.Ct. 2342); Dykstra v. First Student, Inc., 324 F.Supp.2d 54, 68 (D.Me.2004) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs
holding that in order to make out a hostile work environment claim plaintiff must provide evidence indicating that the defendants actions were motivated by discrimination 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 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 failure to make out a hostile work environment claim effectively disposes of the constructive discharge claim as well recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983