before notifying her and deactivated her card key such that she could not let herself into the building that morning. The adverse employment actions occurred close in time to the depositions, but even more significant is the humiliating way the actions were carried out: she was the last to know and had to be let into the building she used to run. The humiliation creates a stronger inference of retaliation than the discipline alone. Cf. Brannum v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 518 F.3d 542, 548 (8th Cir.2008) (“Rather, whether a work environment is so hostile or abusive as to alter the terms and conditions of employment is to be judged in light of all the circumstances, including ... whether it is ... humiliating .... ” (quotation omitted)); Swain v. Spinney, 117 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The majority’s response to the retaliatory
holding there was a distinct possibility in a  1983 action that the strip search and accompanying sexual humiliation was in retaliation for the individuals noncooperation and noting the possibility that the search was merely a pretext to humiliate holding that search of appellants suitcase found on the floor next to the couch on which he was sleeping was an unconstitutional search of his person and was not authorized by a search of the residence holding that acquiescence to a strip and body cavity search did not extend the scope of defendants consent to search his person because of the highly intrusive nature of the search holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that strip search incident to arrest was not per se unreasonable but holding that search was performed in an unreasonable manner when conducted in view of the public