developed and applied over the years “on a case-by-case basis with close reference to the facts in each individual case.” Taylor, 73 S.W.3d at 622; see also Sexton v. Jenkins & Assocs., 152 S.W.3d 270, 275 (Mo. banc 2004) (Teitelman, J., concurring). However, the courts have recognized the following general rule: “In cases that have recognized the ‘something more’ element has been met, the supervisor had personally participated in the ‘something more’ by directing the employees to engage in dangerous conditions that a reasonable person would recognize as hazardous and beyond the usual requirements of the employment.” Lyon, 960 S.W.2d at 526; State ex rel. Larkin v. Oxenhandler, 159 S.W.3d 417, 423 (Mo.App. W.D.2005); see also Groh v. Kohler, 148 S.W.3d 11, 15, 16 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (<HOLDING>). If Arnwine’s petition and supporting evidence
holding that working conditions were not intolerable to the point of coercion where supervisors yelled at employee told her she was a poor manager gave her poor performance evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back holding that the something more requirement was met when after a factory worker complained to her supervisor that her machine was not operating properly the workers supervisor told her to go back to work quit whining and just deal with it holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim holding that conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive where a supervisor allegedly touched plaintiffs hand and thigh lifted her dress hem repeatedly asked her to lunch told her that she was beautiful stared at her and called her home on numerous occasions at night and asked about personal matters holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment