the terms and conditions of her employment altered by [the co-worker’s] actions. [The employee] was harassed on a single occasion for a matter of minutes in a way that did not impair her ability to do her job in the long-term[.] ” (Footnote omitted.)). See also Oncale, 523 U.S. at 81, 118 S.Ct. 998 (“The prohibition of harassment on the basis of sex ... forbids only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the ‘conditions’ of the victim’s employment. ‘Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment—an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive—is beyond Title VU’s purview.’ ” (Quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S.Ct. 367.)); Meriwether v. Caraustar Packaging Co., 326 F.3d 990, 993 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 3. Distinction between federal standard and
recognizing that conduct amounts to actionable sexual harassment only when it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive working environment  alteration in original citation omitted holding that severe and pervasive conduct is so permeated with discriminatory intimidation ridicule and insult that it alters the conditions of the victims employment and creates an abusive working environment holding that a single incident in which a coworker squeezed an employees buttocks was not sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive working environment holding single incident of sexual harassment was neither sufficiently pervasive nor severe to constitute a hostile work environment holding that conduct of supervisor who grabbed plaintiff on the buttocks and made suggestive comments while she was conversing with another employee was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter a term or condition of plaintiffs employment