and (3) the district court failed to consider her evidence. After de novo review, see Forrest v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 285 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir.2002), and for the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Coleman was hired by the Varner Unit Records Department, and after approximately ten months, she resigned, citing extreme stress due to a heavy workload and other stress-related conditions. In her complaint, she alleged that ADC had failed to place her in her hired position or to promote her, refused to train her, required her to work alone with limited help for ten months, and required her to perform other people’s duties while prohibiting others from assisting her. While Coleman presented her own deposition testi 1151, 1156-59 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Helfter v. UPS, Inc., 115 F.3d 613,
holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding prima facie case of discrimination includes showing of adverse employment action constructive discharge could satisfy element of adverse employment action but there was no constructive discharge where evidence did not support that discrimination rather than actual performance problems prompted reprimands and poor evaluations holding that although there was evidence of discrimination based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive discharge holding that adverse employment actions include poor evaluations holding that poor evaluations alone do not constitute an adverse employment action