Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BENNETT, Chief Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.1104 A. Factual Background.1104 B. Procedural Background.1107 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1108 A. Standards For Summarg Judgment.1108 1. Requirements of Rule 56 .1109 2. The parties’ burdens.1109 3. Summarg judgment in emplogment discrimination cases.1110 B. Scope Of Martinez’s Withdrawal Of Claims.1111 1. Scope of the express withdrawal .1111 2. Was there an implicit withdrawal of some claims?.1113 C. Title VII Claims .1114 1. Retaliation .1114 a. Arguments of the parties.1114 b. Applicable law .1116 c. The record in light of applicable law .1118 i. Martinez’s prima facie case of retaliation.1118 ii. The shifting of burdens.1121 2. Constructive discharge.1122 a. Arguments of the parties.1122 b. Applicable law .1122 c. The record in light of applicable law .1124 D. Disability Claims.1124 1. Arguments of the parties.1124 2. Analysis in light of applicable law .1126 a. “Disability” within the meaning of the ADA.1127 i.What type of disability is at issue?.1127 ii. Actual disability.1127 iii. Record of disability.1131 b. Failure to accommodate.1132 i.The legal duty to accommodate.1132 ii. Evidence of assignments beyond plaintiff’s restrictions.1133 iii. Obligations in the “interactiveprocess.”.1134 c. Hostile environment.1135 d. Constructive discharge.1137 E. Intentional Inñiction Of Emotional Distress.1137 1. Arguments of the parties.1137 2. Applicable law .1137 3. Application of the law.1139 III. CONCLUSION.1140 Although, as Circuit Judge McMillian once observed, “[s]ummary judgment is not designed to weed out dubious claims, but to eliminate those claims with no basis in material fact,” in the process of litigating the defendants’ all-encompassing summary judgment motion in this employment discrimination case, the parties have themselves weeded out certain claims and issues. Although the court is still left with a daunting list of issues on which it must decide whether a jury question is presented, the parties’ reevaluation of their claims and contentions is laudatory, as it is likely to focus attention on matters genuinely in dispute and to save the court and parties time and energy. Somewhat more specifically, the plaintiff has expressly withdrawn her sex discrimination claims, instead narrowing the focus of this litigation to her national origin and disability discrimination claims. Similarly, the defendants have expressly withdrawn their motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs claim of a hostile work environment based on national origin. However, the defendants also argue that the plaintiff has implicitly narrowed her national origin claims by failing to respond to the defendants’ contentions that she cannot generate a genuine issue of material fact on her claims of disparate treatment and constructive discharge based on national origin. The court must not only decide what is still at issue in the case and on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, but decide whether a jury question is presented on challenged issues. I. INTRODUCTION A. Factual Background Whether or not a party is entitled to summary judgment ordinarily turns on whether or not there are genuine issues for trial, Quick v. Donaldson Co., 90 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (8th Cir.1996); Johnson v. Enron Corp., 906 F.2d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir.1990), and the court must view all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538; Quick, 90 F.3d at 1377 (same). Nevertheless, the court will not attempt here a comprehensive review of the undisputed and disputed facts in the record, although some factual -background is necessary to put in context the parties’ arguments for and against summary judgment on the claims that remain at issue. Therefore, what is presented here is only a sketch of the essential factual background and factual disputes on the present record. Plaintiff Araceli Martinez, who describes herself as Hispanic and of Mexican origin, began working for defendant Cole Sewell on August 18, 1999, as an assembler, parts processor, and core line operator on the “second shift” from 3:45 p.m. to 12:15 a.m. at Cole Sewell’s plant in Clear Lake, Iowa, where the company manufactures doors. Unfortunately, shortly after she began working for Cole Sewell, she was injured on the job. She contends that, thereafter, she was repeatedly harassed by co-workers and supervisors because of her disability and national origin, that Cole Sewell failed to accommodate her disabilities, and that Cole Sewell retaliated against her for complaining about harassment and discrimination. Her last day of work at Cole Sewell was June 17, 2000, although her employment apparently did not officially terminate until sometime in August 2000. The first of Martinez’s two on-the-job injuries occurred on August 26, 1999, when she hyper-extended her right thumb when she attempted to catch an 8.5 pound piece of falling glass. Although initial treatment apparently consisted only of first aid, Martinez went to the doctor in September, and again in November, for treatment of thumb pain. On November 3, 1999, Dr. DeBartolo instructed her to use a thumb splint while working and to avoid forceful pinching. On November 30, 1999, Dr. De-Bartolo released Martinez to work “light duty” with no use of her right hand. Unfortunately, on December 7, 1999, Ms. Martinez suffered a second injury at work, this time a strain to her left shoulder. However, she did not receive immediate medical treatment for that injury, either, but was eventually treated on January 7, 2000, at which time she was referred for two sessions of physical therapy and placed on a restriction of five pounds of force and no overhead activity with her left arm. Her previous restrictions on use of her right hand remained in place. Indeed, Ms. Martinez was placed on a “no work” restriction from December 14, until December 16, 1999, because of her prior thumb injury, and on December 16, 1999, Dr. DeBartolo extended that status through January 6, 2000. Martinez apparently remained on light duty work restrictions,' with occasional periods on “no work” restrictions, for the remainder of her employment with Cole Sewell. Despite her continuing physical limitations, Martinez contends that her supervisors repeatedly assigned her work that was beyond her doctor-imposed restrictions and “coerced” doctors to change her restrictions beyond her actual capabilities. Cole Sewell admits that some of its supervisors believed that Martinez was exaggerating her discomfort while doing various jobs, because they believed that she was only assigned jobs within her restrictions. During the course of her employment, Martinez contends that she was also subjected to harassment in the form of foul language, such as “fuck you,” and “shit,” and taunting, including comments that she was “lazy” and epithets like “spider,” “mummy,” “shitty Mexican” or “Mexican shit,” and “wetback,” and teased about an overbite. Although Martinez acknowledges that some of the foul language was used among co-workers to “get a laugh,” and not to offend each other, she contends that she was offended by it and was offended by the name-calling and teasing directed specifically at her. Martinez also complains that supervisors ridiculed and laughed at her about the way that she spoke English. Cole Sewell disputes the extent to which Martinez made her supervisors or managers aware of offensive language or alleged harassment or the extent to which those persons notified ignored her complaints when Cole Sewell acknowledges that Martinez did make complaints. It is undisputed that Martinez filed an administrative charge dated February 15, 2000, with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission in which she alleged discrimination on the basis of national origin and sex. She later amended that administrative charge to allege disability discrimination as well. Cole Sewell also admits that Martinez made a formal in-house complaint of harassment on March 3, 2000, although Cole Sewell contends that Martinez declined to provide specifics about the harassment or to identify the harassers. Martinez contends that she did, in fact, identify the harassers, including supervisors present at the meeting, during what she describes as an “interrogation” on March 3, 2000. Cole Sewell initiated an investigation based on Martinez’s March 3, 2000, complaint, but eventually notified Martinez that its investigation had not revealed any evidence of harassment. Martinez contends that Cole Sewell representatives also informed other line workers that the company had found no conduct constituting “harassment,” which Martinez contends amounted to the company “condoning” the harassment. In its notice concerning the results of its investigation, Cole Sewell asked Martinez to provide any additional information that she had about the incident on which her complaint was based, and to notify Cole Sewell representatives if she had any more information or complaints about harassment. On April 28,. 2000, Martinez filed a second complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission in which she alleged that she had been retaliated' against by Mr. Nickel, her direct supervisor, Ms. Thomas, the Director of Human Resources for Cole Sewell, and Mr. Fausnaugh. On February 28, 2000, Martinez received a written warning for absenteeism based on what Cole Sewell viewed as excessive absenteeism and tardiness from work. Before Martinez left work again on March 2, 2000, she was warned that the absence would be treated as “unplanned.” Martinez, however, contends that she left work on that day, because her supervisors had assigned her work beyond her medical restrictions. Martinez received a second warning about absenteeism on March 3, 2000. Cole Sewell contends that these notices and subsequent action by Cole Se-well were pursuant to Cole Sewell’s Absenteeism/Tardiness Policy. On May 2, 2000, Martinez sent in a note from one of her doctors, who was in fact a psychiatrist, stating that she would not be working for “medical reasons” until May 9, 2000. Although Cole Sewell asserts that Mr. Wor-rall, a human resources specialist for the company, attempted to follow up with a request to Martinez’s counsel for more information about her medical condition, Cole Sewell contends that it was not informed of the reason for the absence. Martinez, however, contends that the absences were pursuant to a note from her psychiatrist, who was treating her for emotional distress arising, at least in part, from harassment at work. On May 16, 2000, Martinez received a Notice of Suspension for three days for excessive absenteeism based on the two prior written warnings and eleven incidents of absences or tardies from May 2, 2000, to May 15, 2000. Martinez was also advised in the Notice that a further infraction would likely lead to her termination. Martinez’s last day at work at Cole Sewell was June 17, 2000, when a chiropractor provided a note that Martinez would be off work for the foreseeable future owing to her thumb injury. Martinez was not formally terminated until some time later. B. Procedural Background After receiving right-to-sue letters from administrative agencies, Araceli Martinez filed her Complaint in this matter on June 8, 2001, and an Amended Complaint on June 21, 2001, naming as defendants Tim Nickel, her immediate supervisor, Lori Thomas, the Director of Human Resources for Cole Sewell, and Brad Worrall, a human resources specialist for Cole Sewell. The first three of the five counts of Martinez’s Complaint are against Cole Sewell only. In Count I, Martinez alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and disparate treatment because of her sex and national origin in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, resulting in her actual or constructive discharge. In Count II, Martinez alleges that she was subjected to adverse employment action in retaliation for her opposition to discrimination in the workplace in violation of Title VII. In Count III, Martinez alleges that she is disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her disability, that Cole Sewell failed to accommodate her disability, and that Cole Sewell “actually constructively” discharged her. Counts TV and V of Martinez’s Complaint are directed at all of the defendants, corporate and individual. In Count IV, Martinez alleges that she was subjected to a hostile environment because of her disability, sex, and national origin in violation of Iowa Code CH. 216, which is the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), and that the three individual defendants are personally liable for that illegal conduct, as well as Cole Sewell. In Count V, a common-law claim, Martinez alleges that the conduct previously alleged in- the Amended Complaint constitutes intentional infliction of severe emotional distress for which the defendants can be held liable. Cole Sewell and the individual defendants initially filed, then withdrew, a motion to dismiss. Martinez’s Amended Complaint. On August 31, 2000, the defendants filed a joint Answer to the Amended Complaint denying Martinez’s claims. The case then proceeded without significant incident until the defendants filed the motion for summary judgment presently before the court. In that motion, filed on October 2, 2002, and amended on October 4, 2002, the defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on Martinez’s Title VII and ICRA claims of retaliation, hostile environment harassment, disparate treatment, and constructive discharge based on sex and national origin; Martinez’s disability discrimination claims, pursuant to the ADA and the ICRA, although the defendants originally only challenged the disability claims involving failure to accommodate and constructive discharge; and Martinez’s common-law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, on the ground that the claim is preempted by Martinez’s statutory discrimination and retaliation claims. In the defendants’ view, therefore, at the time of filing, the motion for summary judgment would have entirely resolved this litigation if granted. In her resistance, filed November 1, 2002, Martinez requests that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied in its entirety. ■ However, in her “Brief in Resistance to Defendant’s [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment” (“Plaintiffs Brief’), Martinez expressly withdraws her “claim of sexual discrimination,” apparently including claims of hostile environment harassment, disparate treatment, and constructive discharge based on sex. Although the defendants construe Martinez’s withdrawal of her “sexual discrimination” claims to include withdrawal of her claim of retaliation based on complaints of sexual harassment, the court will leave for consideration below the precise scope of Martinez’s express withdrawal. Martinez expressly resists the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to her Title VII retaliation claim; her claim of a hostile environment based on national origin in violation of state and federal law; her disability discrimination claims in violation of state and federal law, including a claim of hostile work environment based on disability, which is not mentioned in the defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. In their reply, filed November 14, 2002, the defendants, in turn, expressly withdraw that portion of their summary judgment motion challenging Martinez’s claim of a hostile work environment based on national origin. However, the defendants also contend in their reply that Martinez has apparently withdrawn her claims for disparate treatment and constructive discharge based on national origin by failing to address those sections of the defendants’ brief challenging those claims. The court will also leave for consideration below whether Martinez implicitly withdrew any claims. In reply to Martinez’s resistance, the defendants reassert their contention that they are entitled to summary judgment on Martinez’s retaliation claim, her disability discrimination claim — including claims for failure to accommodate, hostile environment discrimination, and constructive discharge based on disability— and her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court heard oral arguments on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on November 27, 2002. At the oral arguments, plaintiff Araceli Martinez was represented by Mark D. Sherinian of Mark D. Sherinian, P.C., in West Des Moines, Iowa, who argued the motion, and James T. Fitz-simmons of Fitzsimmons & Vervaecke Law Firm, P.L.C., in Mason City, Iowa. Defendants Cole Sewell, Tim Nickel, Lori Thomas, and Brad Worrall were represented by Deborah M. Tharnish of Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts, P.C., in Des Moines, Iowa. The court was impressed with the quality and thoroughness of the parties’ written and oral arguments and, as mentioned above, with the parties’ conscientious reevaluation of their claims and contentions, which narrowed the scope of both the litigation and the summary judgment motion. At the oral arguments, plaintiffs counsel requested leave to supplement the record with the transcripts of the depositions of one or more witnesses just lately deposed, and the court agreed, provided that the plaintiff e-mailed the transcript or transcripts to the court and the defendant by December 4, 2002, and the defendant was given an opportunity to respond to the supplementary material. The court received a transcript of one deposition by email on December 4, 2002, along with the plaintiffs indications of the most pertinent aspects of the witness’s testimony, and the court received the defendant’s response, also by e-mail, on December 5, 2002. The court has considered both the supplementary material and the defendant’s response to it. Therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is now fully submitted for the court’s consideration. II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Standards For Summary Judgment This court has considered in some detail the standards applicable to motions for summary judgnent pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a number of prior decisions. See, e.g., Swanson v. Van Otterloo, 993 F.Supp. 1224, 1230-31 (N.D.Iowa 1998); Dirks v. J.C. Robinson Seed Co., 980 F.Supp. 1303, 1305-07 (N.D.Iowa 1997); Laird v. Stilloill, 969 F.Supp. 1167, 1172-74 (N.D.Iowa 1997); Rural Water Sys. # 1 v. City of Sioux Ctr., 967 F.Supp. 1483, 1499-1501 (N.D.Iowa 1997), aff'd in pertinent part, 202 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 820, 121 S.Ct. 61, 148 L.Ed.2d 28 (2000); Tralon Corp. v. Cedarapids, Inc., 966 F.Supp. 812, 817-18 (N.D.Iowa 1997), aff'd, 205 F.3d 1347, 2000 WL 84400 (8th Cir.2000) (Table op.); Security State Bank v. Firstar Bank Miluaukee, N.A., 965 F.Supp. 1237, 1239-40 (N.D.Iowa 1997); Lockhart v. Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist., 963 F.Supp. 805 (N.D.Iowa 1997). The essentials of these standards for present purposes are as follows. 1. Requirements of Rule 56 Rule 56 itself provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Rule 56. Summary Judgment :¡í ‡ * * * (b) For Defending Party. A party against whom a claim ... is asserted ... may, at any time, move for summary judgment in the party’s favor as to all or any part thereof. (c) Motions and Proceedings Thereon.... The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled■ to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)-(c) (emphasis added). Applying these standards, the trial judge’s function at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Quick v. Donaldson Co., 90 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (8th Cir.1996); Johnson v. Enron Corp., 906 F.2d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir.1990). An issue of material fact is genuine if it has a real basis in the record. Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394 (8th Cir.1992) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). As to whether a factual dispute is “material,” the Supreme Court has explained, “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir.1999); Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326 (8th Cir.1995); Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 394. 2. The parties’ burdens Proeedurally, the moving party bears “the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which show lack of a genuine issue.” Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 395 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)); see also Rose-Maston, 133 F.3d at 1107; Reed v. Woodruff County, Ark., 7 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir.1993). “When a moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348. Rather, the party opposing summary judgment is required under Rule 56(e) to go beyond the pleadings, and by affidavits, or by the “depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,” designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” • FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Rabushka ex. rel. United States v. Crane Co., 122 F.3d 559, 562 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1040, 118 S.Ct. 1336, 140 L.Ed.2d 498 (1998); McLaughlin v. Essette Pendaflex Corp., 50 F.3d 507, 511 (8th Cir.1995); Beyerbach, 49 F.3d at 1325. If a party-fails to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of a claim with respect to which that party has the burden of proof, then the opposing party is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548; In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prod. Liab. Litig., 113 F.3d 1484, 1492 (8th Cir.1997). In reviewing the record, the court must view all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348; Quick, 90 F.3d at 1377 (same). 3. Summary judgment in employment discrimination cases Because this is an employment discrimination case, it is well to remember that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has cautioned that “summary judgment should seldom be used in employment-discrimination cases.” Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Johnson v. Minnesota Historical Soc’y, 931 F.2d 1239, 1244 (8th Cir.1991); Hillebrand v. M-Tron Indus., Inc., 827 F.2d 363, 364 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 782, 102 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989)); see also Snow v. Ridgeview Medical Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Crawford), Helfter v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 115 F.3d 613, 615 (8th Cir.1997) (quoting Crawford), Chock v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 113 F.3d 861, 862 (8th Cir.1997) (“We must also keep in mind, as our court has previously cautioned, that summary judgment should be used sparingly in employment discrimination cases,” citing Crawford); Smith v. St. Louis Univ., 109 F.3d 1261, 1264 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Crawford); Hardin v. Hussmann Corp., 45 F.3d 262 (8th Cir.1995) (“summary judgments should only be used sparingly in employment discrimination cases,” citing Haglof v. Northwest Rehabilitation, Inc., 910 F.2d 492, 495 (8th Cir.1990); Hillebrand, 827 F.2d at 364). Summary judgment is appropriate in employment discrimination cases only in “those rare instances where there is no dispute of fact and where there exists only one conclusion.” Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244; see also Webb v. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 51 F.3d 147, 148 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244); Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341 (quoting Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244). To put it another way, “[bjecause discrimination cases often depend on inferences rather than on direct evidence, summary judgment should not be granted unless the evidence could not support any reasonable inference for the nonmovant.” Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341 (holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment); accord Snow, 128 F.3d at 1205 (“Because discrimination cases often turn on inferences rather than on direct evidence, we are particularly deferential to the nonmovant,” citing Crawford); Webb v. Garelick Mfg. Co., 94 F.3d 484, 486 (8th Cir.1996) (citing Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341); Wooten v. Farmland Foods, 58 F.3d 382, 385 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341); Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244. However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals also observed that, “[ajlthough summary judgnent should be used sparingly in the context of employment discrimination cases, Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1994), the plaintiffs evidence must go beyond the establishment of a prima facie case to support a reasonable inference regarding the alleged illicit reason for the defendant’s action.” Landon v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 620, 624 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Reich v. Hoy Shoe Co., 32 F.3d 361, 365 (8th Cir.1994)); accord Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir.) (observing that the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas must be used to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 818, 120 S.Ct. 59, 145 L.Ed.2d 51 (1999). In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), the Supreme Court reiterated that “ ‘[t]he ultimate-burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.’” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Bufdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)). Thus, what the plaintiffs evidence must show, to avoid summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law, is “ ‘1, that the stated reasons were not the real reasons for [the plaintiffs] discharge; and 2, that age [or race, or sex, or other prohibited] discrimination was the real reason for [the plaintiffs] discharge.’ ” Id. at 153, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (quoting the district court’s jury instructions as properly stating the law). The Supreme Court clarified in Reeves that, to meet this burden, “a plaintiffs prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.” Id. at 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (emphasis added). The court will apply these standards to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this case. B. Scope Of Martinez’s Withdrawal Of Claims The first question that the court must answer is precisely what claims Martinez has withdrawn, as the answer to that question will determine not only what claims are still at issue in this litigation generally, but what portions of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be resolved. The question arises here both as to the scope of Martinez’s express withdrawal of her “claim of sexual discrimination,” and as to whether or not Martinez implicitly withdrew her claims of disparate treatment and constructive discharge based on national origin, as the defendants contend. 1. Scope of the express withdrawal In her resistance to the defendants’ summary judgment motion, Martinez expressly withdrew certain claims, as follows: Ms. Martinez has authorized her attorneys to withdraw her claim of sexual discrimination in this case. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff believes that the conduct exhibited by Mr. Worrall in regard to bathroom breaks and other employees in regard to profanity should still be considered as part of the hostile work environment based upon Ms. Martinez’s national origin. Plaintiffs Brief at 4. The court concludes, readily enough, that Martinez’s express withdrawal of her “umbrella” claim of “sexual discrimination” includes her “constituent” claims of hostile environment harassment, disparate treatment, and constructive discharge based on sex. More specifically, it follows from a reading of Count I of Martinez’s Amended Complaint that withdrawal of the “claim of sexual discrimination” was not intended to mean withdrawal only of a “disparate treatment” claim, for example, because Count I of the Amended Complaint pleads in a single count “a hostile work environment,” “disparate treatment,” and “actua[l] or con-structivo] discharg[e] ... because of [Martinez’s] sex ...all in violation of Title VII. See Amended Complaint, Count I, ¶¶ 14-16. Moreover, as the Supreme Court explained some time ago in the seminal case recognizing sexually hostile environment harassment as actionable under Title VII, such a claim is a form of “sexual discrimination.” See Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 66, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (“Since the Guidelines were issued [in 1980 by the EEOC], courts have uniformly held, and we agree, that a plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment.”). Finally, this court has found nothing in the remainder of Martinez’s brief that could be construed as argument that any of the “constituent” claims of “hostile environment harassment,” “disparate treatment,” and “constructive discharge” was intended to remain viable notwithstanding withdrawal of the “umbrella” claim of “sexual discrimination.” However, the defendants have construed Martinez’s withdrawal of her “claim of sexual discrimination” as also including withdrawal of her claim of retaliation based on complaints of sexual harassment. This reading does not necessarily follow, either from Martinez’s Amended Complaint or Title VIPs statutory language. First, Martinez asserted retaliation in violation of Title VII in a separate count, Count II, from her claim of discrimination in violation of Title VII in Count I. Compare Amended Complaint, Count I (alleging “discrimination” specifically in the form of “hostile work environment,” “disparate treatment,” and “constructive discharge,” based on sex or national origin), with Count II (alleging “retaliation” for “opposition to discrimination”). Moreover, “retaliation” is prohibited by a separate section of Title VII from the section defining other unlawful employment practices, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) rather than 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Thus, the court must consider further whether Martinez intended to withdraw her claim of retaliation for opposing sexual discrimination. It appears that Martinez reserved factual allegations originally intended to support her “sexual discrimination” claims only to support her claim of a hostile work environment based upon her national origin. See Plaintiffs Brief at 4 (as quoted above). However, the court can find no clear suggestion in the portion of Martinez’s brief resisting summary judgment on her retaliation claim that Martinez was only relying on alleged incidents of retaliation for opposing national origin discrimination as generating the necessary genuine issues of material fact to allow the claim to go to the jury. See id. at 10-13. Rather, Martinez identifies her complaints about “discrimination,” both her formal one to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on February 15, 2000, and informal ones to company representatives in November 1999, January 2000, and March 2000, as the “protected activity” prompting retaliation. See id. Also, the discrimination referred to in the formal administrative charge is both “national origin” and “sex,” although the narrative explanation of the nature of the discrimination appears to point to discrimination based on physical impairment and national origin, rather than sex. See Amended Complaint, Exhibit A; see also Defendant’s Appendix at 1-3. Finally, when the court asked Martinez’s counsel directly at the oral arguments whether Martinez intended her withdrawal of her “claim of sexual discrimination” to include her claim of retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment, Martinez’s counsel stated that the retaliation claim was based on retaliation for filing the charge of discrimination with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, not for complaining about specific kinds of discrimination. The court concludes that, in an abundance of caution, it should consider whether Martinez’s retaliation claim should go to the jury on the basis that the protected activity allegedly involved complaints about “discrimination,” including sexual discrimination as well as national origin and disability discrimination. 2. Was there an implicit withdrawal of some claims? The defendants also contend that Martinez implicitly withdrew her claims of disparate treatment and constructive discharge based on national origin by failing to address those sections of the defendants’ brief in support of their summary judgment motion challenging those claims. When asked at oral arguments whether Martinez intended to withdraw disparate treatment and constructive discharge claims based on national origin, Martinez’s counsel asserted that Martinez had addressed those claims “from-a factual standpoint” in her resistance, even, if she had not expressly briefed them under appropriate headings. The court then confirmed that this meant that Martinez did not intend to withdraw those claims. Nevertheless, the court finds that the defendants’ contention that these claims were implicitly withdrawn can be addressed by application of the standards for summary judgment outlined above. In Sections IV and V of their brief, the defendants met their “initial responsibility” under Rule 56 “of informing the district court of the basis for [their] motion and identifying those portions of the record which show lack of a genuine issue” as to Martinez’s national origin claims of disparate treatment and constructive discharge, respectively. See Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 395 (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548); see also Rose-Maston, 133 F.3d at 1107; Reed, 7 F.3d at 810. Determination of whether Martinez then met her burden under Rule 56(e) — ■ that is, her burden to go beyond the pleadings, and by affidavits, or by the “depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,” designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Rabushka, 122 F.3d at 562; McLaughlin, 50 F.3d at 511; Beyerbach, 49 F.3d at 1325 — is complicated, in part, by the fact that Martinez does not address issues in her brief in the same order or under the same rubric in which they were raised by the defendants. However, the proper question, as her counsel’s contentions at oral arguments suggests, is whether Martinez points to record evidence in support of her claims sufficient to generate a genuine issue of material fact on those claims, not how and where in her brief she does that. Even so, the court finds that Martinez has not met her burden with regard to her claim of disparate treatment because of national origin. Indeed, nowhere in her brief does the court find that Martinez has asserted that there is record evidence that generates a genuine issue of material fact that she was treated differently than similarly situated non-Mexicans, although she has marshaled evidence that she asserts supports her claims of harassment based on national origin and retaliation for complaining about national origin harassment. See Plaintiffs Brief at 4-7 (discussing hostile environment harassment based on national origin)' & 10-13 (discussing retaliation). Moreover, even her counsel’s oral argument in support of her claim of disparate treatment based on national origin did not distinguish that claim from her claim of a hostile environment based on national origin, because the only evidence of adverse employment action that she identified in support of the disparate treatment claim was evidence of instances of alleged harassment and ridicule. Certainly, Martinez has not identified any evidence to support. a “classic” disparate treatment claim, such as failure to hire, transfer, promote, or denial of specific benefits, job assignments, or conditions of employment available to similarly situated persons who were not Mexican. Because Martinez has not made the necessary designation of evidence of disparate treatment because of national origin, the defendants are “entitled to judgment as a matter of law” on that claim. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548; In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prod. Liab. Litig., 113 F.3d at 1492. On the other hand, the court finds that Martinez has argued, and marshaled evidence in support of her argument, that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not she was constructively discharged because of. her national origin. The record evidence to which she specifically points in support of her contention that she was constructively discharged includes citations to record evidence that harassment because of her national origin — including, for example, incidents in which she was called “lazy,” which she elsewhere contends is a stereo-type for Mexiean-Amerieans — made her workplace intolerable. See, e.g., Plaintiffs Brief at 20. Moreover, implicit in her arguments that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on national origin is a contention that the hostile work environment was sufficiently intolerable to cause her constructive discharge. Thus, while the court agrees that Martinez has implicitly withdrawn her claim of disparate treatment based on national origin, or has failed to carry her burden in resistance to a motion for summary judgment on that claim, by failing to identify evidence in support of that claim, in an abundance of caution, the court concludes that Martinez has at least attempted to resist the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on her claim that harassment because of her national origin ultimately caused her constructive discharge. The court turns, next, to the claims still at issue in this litigation upon which the defendants are still seeking summary judgment. C. Title VII Claims Because Martinez has expressly withdrawn her “sexual discrimination” claims, the court has found that Martinez implicitly withdrew or failed to carry her burden at summary judgment on her claim of disparate treatment based on national origin, and the defendants have withdrawn their motion for summary judgment on Martinez’s claim of a hostile work environment based on her national origin, only two issues related to Title VII claims are now presented for consideration on summary judgment: (1) whether there are genuine issues of material fact on Martinez’s Title VII retaliation claim; and (2) whether there are genuine issues of material fact that harassment based on national origin in violation of Title VII caused Martinez’s constructive discharge. The court will consider these issues in turn. 1. Retaliation a. Arguments of the parties The defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on Martinez’s Title VII retaliation claims, because Martinez has failed to generate a prima facie case of retaliation and, even if she has, she has failed to present evidence generating a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants’ stated reasons for their actions are a pretext for retaliation. Somewhat more specifically, the defendants argue that Martinez has not established that she engaged in any protected activity, because they contend that it is undisputed that Martinez never brought any alleged discrimination to the attention of any supervisor at Cole Sewell. Instead, on the only occasion that she approached Ms. Thomas with a complaint, it was to report that co-workers were using profanity, but Martinez herself admits that profanity was used toward and among both men and women. Therefore, defendants argue, Martinez could not have had a reasonable belief that use of profanity was conduct that violated Title VII. Although the defendants concede, albeit only for the purposes of summary judgment, that Martinez’s filing of an administrative complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission constituted protected activity, they contend that Martinez nevertheless has not generated a genuine issue of material fact that she sustained any adverse employment action as a result of that filing. Rather, they contend that her allegations are that nothing changed after she filed her administrative charge and there is no evidence of additional, different, or more odious duties imposed upon her after the filing of the charge. They argue, further, that warnings for absenteeism did not cause a material disadvantage to Martinez, even supposing that they were related to her filing of a charge of discrimination, and that ostracism by co-workers or supervisors is insufficient, standing alone, to support her claim. Nor is there any causal connection, defendants contend, between any protected activity and any adverse action, because of the time lag between the filing of Martinez’s administrative charge, or any other complaints about harassment, and the purportedly retaliatory warnings for absenteeism. Cole Sewell also contends that it cannot be held liable for any adverse conduct by co-workers in retaliation for Martinez’s complaints about discrimination. Finally, the defendants contend that Martinez cannot show that any warnings or disciplinary actions for absenteeism were a pretext for retaliation, because those actions were appropriate in light of the company’s absenteeism policy and Martinez’s record of absences. Martinez, however, argues that there is more than enough evidence to permit her retaliation claim to go to the jury. She contends that protected activity includes both formal and informal complaints about discrimination, and that she made both kinds of complaints. She also contends that there are numerous incidents of adverse employment action following on the heels of her protected activity, including delivery of her paycheck later than delivery of paychecks to other employees; misinforming her of the time to start working; delays in giving her work; and constant harassment from co-workers, for which Martinez contends a number of courts have recently held employers liable. Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, she contends that adverse actions and harassment followed closely in time after her complaints and administrative charge of harassment and that the harassment by co-workers was condoned by supervisors, when they informed line employees that their conduct did not constitute “harassment,” or by failing to take action when harassing epithets or comments were made to Martinez within earshot of supervisors. As to pretext, not only does Martinez disagree with the defendants’ contentions that all of their actions were justified by their absenteeism policy, but she argues that there is record evidence that other employees acknowledged that Martinez was unfairly criticized for being late or absent when other employees were not. In reply, the defendants contend that supposed incidents" of co-worker harassment in retaliation for complaints about harassment were not reported to or observed by supervisors, and that the allegedly harassing comments have nothing inherently to do with national origin. They also contend that Martinez has still failed to demonstrate that there is evidence of a causal connection between any complaints about harassment and any alleged retaliatory acts, because Martinez has cited no record evidence that supervisors ever condoned any retaliatory harassment by coworkers. Finally, the defendants argue that the only evidence of any possible adverse employment action that Martinez experienced was discipline for absenteeism, but that the company’s absenteeism policy and Martinez’s record of absenteeism demonstrate that disciplinary action was not just a pretext for retaliation. b. Applicable law As noted above, retaliation is prohibited under Title VII by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), which prohibits an employer from “discri-minat[ing] against any of his employees ... because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); see also Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 269, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) (per curiam). In this case, Martinez specifically pleaded “opposition” to harassment as the basis for her retaliation claim, although, in her resistance to the defendants’ summary judgment motion, she also identified “protected activity” in which she engaged as including “making a charge” of discrimination. On-a motion for summary judgment, in the absence of direct evidence of retaliation, courts in this circuit “apply the familiar McDonnell Douglas three-part burden shifting analysis” to a retaliation claim. See Thorn v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 305 F.3d 826, 830 (8th Cir.2002) (citing Buettner v. Arch Coal Sales Co., 216 F.3d 707, 713-14 (8th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1077, 121 S.Ct. 773, 148 L.Ed.2d 672 (2001)). Thus, [ajbsent direct evidence of discrimination, we ask first whether plaintiff presented a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination, next whether defendant rebutted the resulting presumption of discrimination by advancing a legitimate reason for its challenged behavior, and finally whether plaintiff refuted defendant’s legitimate reason with sufficient evidence of pretext. Thorn, 305 F.3d at 830. The steps in this analysis warrant some further elucidation. The plaintiffs prima facie case “requires a showing [1] that the employee engaged in some form of protected activity, [2] that the employee was subject to adverse employment action and [3] that the adverse action was causally connected to the protected activity.” Woodland v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., 302 F.3d 839, 844 (8th Cir.2002). As to the first element, although either “opposition to” or “making a charge” of discrimination constitutes “protected activity” under § 2000e-3(a), the Supreme Court has explained that the “protected activity” element of a prima facie case (or claim) of retaliation also requires that “a reasonable person could have believed [that the discriminatory conduct relied upon] violated Title VII’s standard.” Breeden, 532 U.S. at 271, 121 S.Ct. 1508. Thus, where the plaintiffs complaints about discrimination involved complaints about harassment, the court must consider what constitutes actionable harassment under Title VII, and whether a reasonable person could have believed that the conduct about which the plaintiff complained violated Title VII’s standards. See id. As to the “adverse employment action” element, “ ‘[c]hanges in duties or working conditions that cause no materially significant disadvantage ... are insufficient to establish the adverse conduct required to make a prima facie case.’” Woodland, 302 F.3d at 845 (quoting Ledergerber v. Stangler, 122 F.3d 1142, 1144 (8th Cir.1997)). Moreover, “ ‘[n]ot everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action.’ ” Id. (quoting Montandon v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 116 F.3d 355, 359-360 (8th Cir.1997)). Indeed, because “Title VII is not ‘a general civility code for the American workplace,’ ... in employer retaliation cases, ‘ostracism and rudeness by supervisors and coworkers do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action.’ ” Thorn, 305 F.3d at 831 (quoting, first, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998), and, second, Gagnon v. Sprint Corp., 284 F.3d 839, 850 (8th Cir.2002)). On the other hand, harassment that is sufficiently “severe or pervasive” itself alters the conditions of the employee’s employment sufficiently to constitute “adverse employment action.” See, e.g., Breeden, 532 U.S. at 270, 121 S.Ct. 1508; Meritor, 477 U.S. at 66, 106 S.Ct. 2399. As to the “causal connection” element of the plaintiffs prima facie case, “ ‘[generally, more than a temporal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action is required to present a genuine factual issue on retaliation.’ ” Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827, 832 (8th Cir.2002) (quoting Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131, 1136 (8th Cir.1999) (en banc)). However, “[a] pattern of adverse actions that occur[s] just after protected activity can supply the extra quantum of evidence to satisfy the causation element.” Id. In Smith, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals attempted to rationalize its cases holding that, “even without a pattern, ... the timing of one incident of adverse employment action following protected activity sufficed to establish causal connection,” with cases suggesting that a mere coincidence of timing is not enough. See id. (citing cases). The court’s analysis was as follows: Although it is difficult to find a principle neatly explaining why each of our cases held temporal connection was or was not sufficient to satisfy the causation requirement, it appears that the length of time between protected activity and adverse action is important. The Supreme Court has said: “The cases that accept mere temporal proximity between an employer’s knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence of causality to establish a prima facie case uniformly hold that the temporal proximity must be very close.” Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). For instance in Kipp [v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n], 280 F.3d [893,] 897 [ (8th Cir.2002) ], we said that “the interval of two months between the complaint and Ms. Kipp’s termination so dilutes any inference of causation that we are constrained to hold as a matter of law that the temporal connection could not justify a finding in Ms. Kipp’s favor on the matter of causal link.” By contrast, we said in Sprenger [v. Federal Home Loan Bank, 253 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir.2001),] that proximity of a “matter of weeks” between disclosure of a potentially disabling condition and adverse employment action was sufficient to complete a prima facie case of discrimination. 253 F.3d at 1113-14. In this case, Smith’s family-leave began on January 1 and Allen discharged her on January 14. These two events are extremely close in time and we conclude that under our precedent this is sufficient, but barely so, to establish causation, completing Smith’s prima facie case. This holding is consistent with the overarching philosophy of the McDonnell Douglas system of proof, which requires only a minimal showing before requiring the employer to explain its actions. See generally Sprenger, 253 F.3d at 1111. Smith, 302 F.3d at 833 (emphasis added). As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals also explained in Smith, “the McDonnell Douglas battle is only begun with the prima facie case.” Smith, 302 F.3d at 833. In addition, “[i]f the employer comes forward with evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its treatment of the employee, the employee must then point to some evidence that the employer’s proffered reason is pretextual.” Id. To make the necessary showing, the plaintiff is “obliged to present evidence that (1) creates a question of fact as to whether [the employer’s] proffered reason was pretextual and (2) creates a reasonable inference that [the employer] acted in retaliation.” Id.; see also Reeves, 530 U.S. at 153, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (what the plaintiffs evidence must show, to avoid summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law, is “ T, that the stated reasons were not the real reasons for [the plaintiffs] discharge; and 2, that age [or race, or sex, or other prohibited] discrimination was the real reason for [the plaintiffs] discharge.”) (quoting the district court’s jury instructions as properly stating the law). To carry the burden of showing pretext at summary judgment, Martinez will be required to show, or at least generate a genuine issue of material fact, that the defendants’ justification for their conduct is “unworthy of credence.” Id. at 833-34 (citing Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097). While a prima facie case may be strong enough, standing alone, to make this showing, that is not always the case, and unlike the plaintiffs prima facie case, the evidence purportedly demonstrating pretext is “ ‘viewed in light of the employer’s justification.’” Id. at 835 (quoting Sprenger, 253 F.3d at 1111). Moreover, “[e]videnee that the employer had been concerned about a problem before the employee engaged in the protected activity undercuts the significance of the temporal proximity,” and indeed, may explain a causal connection showing that any temporal proximity is not the result of retaliatory motive. Id. On the other hand, “[a]n employee can prove pretext by showing the employer meted out more lenient treatment to similarly situated employees who were not in the protected class, or ... did not engage in protected activity,” although the plaintiff must “prove that the compared employees were similarly situated in all relevant aspects.” Id. at 835. Similarly, “ ‘[substantial changes over time in the employer’s proffered reason for its employment decision support a finding of pretext,”’ id. (quoting Kobrin v. University of Minnesota, 34 F.3d 698, 703 (8th Cir.1994)), as may deviation from a policy upon which the employer relies as justifying its treatment of the employee. Id. c. The record in light of applicable law i. Martinez’s prima facie case of retaliation. Determination of whether or not Martinez has generated the necessary genuine issues of material fact to allow her retaliation claim to go to the jury begins with consideration of her prima facie case. As to the first element of that prima facie case — “that the employee engaged in some form of protected activity,” see Woodland, 302 F.3d at 844— the court rejects the defendants’ contention that Martinez has not generated any genuine issues of material fact that she engaged in “protected activity.” The defendants themselves concede that Martinez made complaints to company officials on March 3, 2000, although they apparently contend that Martinez did not provide sufficient information about the nature of the harassment or the identity of the harassers for that complaint to constitute protected activity. On the other hand, Martinez contends that she described foul language and repeated taunting by coworkers and supervisors in her complaint to Lori Thomas on March 3, 2000. Although the court agrees that no reasonable person could believe that just “foul language” constituted harassment under Title VII, and thus, such a complaint would not constitute “protected activity,” see Breeden, 532 U.S. at 271, 121 S.Ct. 1508, a report that Martinez was being “taunted” may be an entirely different matter. As the Supreme Court explained in Breeden, whether a reasonable person could believe that she was reporting harassment depends upon whether or not a reasonable person could believe that the conduct could satisfy Title VU’s definition of actionable harassment. In Breeden, the Supreme Court explained Title VII’s standards for sexual harassment as follows: Title VII forbids actions taken on the basis of sex that “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). Just three Terms ago, we reiterated, what was plain from our previous decisions, that sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII only if it is “so ‘severe or pervasive’ as to ‘alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 786, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (some internal quotation marks omitted)). See also Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 752, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998) (Only harassing conduct that is “severe or pervasive” can produce a “constructive alteratio[n] in the terms or conditions of employment”); Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998) (Title VII “forbids only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the ‘conditions’ of the victim’s employment”). Workplace conduct is not measured in isolation; instead, “whether an environment is sufficiently hostile or abusive” must be judged “by ‘looking at all the circumstances,’ including the ‘frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.’ ” Faragher v. Boca Raton, supra, at 787-788, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (quoting Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)). Hence, “[a] recurring point in [our] opinions is that simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment.’ ” Faragher v. Boca Raton, supra, at 788, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Breeden, 532 U.S. at 270-71, 121 S.Ct. 1508. Our Circuit Court of Appeals has applied essentially identical “severe or pervasive” standards to determine whether an environment was sufficiently racially hostile. See, e.g., Dowd v. United Steelworkers of America, Local No. 286, 253 F.3d 1093, 1101 (8th Cir.2001); Robinson v. Valmont Indus., 238 F.3d 1045, 1047 (8th Cir.2001); Ross v. Douglas County, Nebraska, 234 F.3d 391, 396 (8th Cir.2000); Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 173 F.3d 693, 700 (8th Cir.1999). This court can find no reasoned basis for applying a different standard to a claim of a hostile environment based on national origin where the statutory basis for all of the harassment claims refers to discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and national origin without distinction. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Thus, if harassment or “taunting” is sufficiently “severe or pervasive,”, reporting such harassment may constitute the necessary “protected activity” to satisfy the first element of Martinez’s prima facie case of retaliation. Elsewhere in her resistance, Martinez identifies the “taunting” to which she was subjected as including comments that she was “lazy” and epithets like “spider,” “mummy,” “shitty Mexican” or “Mexican shit,” and “wetback,” and that such “taunting” was very frequent, almost every time she was on or near the production line. The frequency and patently derogatory content of some of these taunts — specifically, “shitty Mexican” or “Mexican shit” and “wetback,” and perhap