(quoting Smith v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 895 F.2d 467, 473 (8th Cir. 1990)). Thus, her prior complaint “did not excuse Alvarez from at least notifying DMB about the continued misconduct to see how the company would respond.” Id. Other cases have similarly held, unless the employee demonstrates a reasonable belief there is no chance for fair treatment, he or she must give the employer a chance to respond before resigning due to retaliatory conduct. See Phillips, 156 F.3d at 891 (determining employee not constructively discharged when manager retaliated against her by speaking to her in “nasty” tone because she “fail[ed] to give Taco Bell a fair opportunity to demonstrate that it had remedied the, situation”); Coffman v. Tracker Marine, L.P., 141 F.3d 1241, 1247-48 (8th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>); Tidwell, 93 F.3d at 496 (concluding employee
holding that although there was evidence of discrimination by the employer based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer had constructively discharged the plaintiff holding that a public employee who is defamed in the course of being terminated or constructively discharged satisfies the stigmaplus test even if as a matter of state law he or she lacks a property interest in the job that he or she lost holding in the alternative that plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that but for plaintiffs age he would not have been constructively discharged where plaintiff was asked on more than one occasion when he was going to retire emphasis in original holding employee resigned and was not constructively discharged because there was no evidence that employer deliberately created working conditions that led to her resignation holding employee was not constructively discharged when she complained about retaliation but failed to give the employers method for solving the problem a chance