objectively by a reasonable person. Cooper v. Albacore Holdings, Inc., 204 S.W.3d 238, 244-45 (Mo.App.E.D.2006). Here, the trial court found that the Employer’s alleged conduct was not sufficient as a matter of law to objectively establish severe or pervasive hostility based on a disability. Whether “a reasonable person would objectively consider [an employer’s] behavior towards [a claimant] severe enough to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment” is a question of fact. Cooper, 204 S.W.3d at 245; see also Howard, 149 F.3d at 840; 37 William C established, whether a reasonable person would similarly find the conduct offensive will generally be a question of fact for the jury. Cf. Meyerkord v. Zipatoni Co., 276 S.W.3d 319, 326 (Mo.App.E.D.2008) (<HOLDING>); Y.G. v. Jewish Hasp, of St. Louis, 795 S.W.2d
holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave holding that whether misrepresentations would be highly offensive to a reasonable person are questions for a jury holding that questions of proximate cause are within the exclusive domain for the jury and may only be removed when reasonable minds cannot differ holding in determining whether driver was insured under terms of policy exclusion of person using vehicle without a reasonable belief person was entitled to do so must be considered holding that whether an encounter is consensual hinges on whether a reasonable person would have felt free to disregard the police and go about his business