Debra Anda brought suit against Wickes Furniture Company (“Wickes”) alleging sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment and constructive discharge. Wickes filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court 1 granted. Anda appeals, and we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In September 2001, Anda became a part-time, commissioned furniture salesperson at Wickes’s Coon Rapids, Minnesota location. Anda was recruited to Wickes by Kathy Gargaro who had previously been Anda’s supervisor at Home Life Furniture. When Anda began her job at Wickes, Gargaro was the store manager, Gary Victor was the sales manager and Jamie Lambert was the office manager. In May 2003, Dave Bruber replaced Gar-garo as the store manager.
Shortly after Anda joined Wickes, Lambert gave her a copy of Wickes’s Code of Business Conduct Manual (“Code”) and its Workplace Harassment Policy (“Harassment Policy”). The Code stated that “it is the goal of Wickes Furniture Company, Inc. to provide a workplace free from unlawful and improper ‘harassment’ of employees by other employees or agents of the Company, or by its customers and vendors.” The Harassment Policy described Wickes’s policy against workplace discrimination, gave examples of harassing behaviors and the consequences for violating the Harassment Policy, and instructed employees who feel victimized by sexual harassment to immediately report the incident. Anda acknowledged she received these policies and was required to review them. Thereafter, Victor explained Wickes’s open door policy to Anda. The open door policy allowed employees to report anything they found objectionable to any manager. Anda said that she interpreted the open door policy to mean that her “opinions count[ed] ... [and she could] go to any of [her] supervisors to discuss any issues that may arise.”
Anda worked with many salespeople at Wickes, including Ryan Carlson, Ernesto Flores, Derek Knott, Tim Mack and Julie Enga. Wickes’s “up list” system allowed
*529
ANDA y. WICKES FURNITURE CO., INC. Cite as
*530 son’s] disciplinary actions and that it was only a matter of time.”
In an October 3, 2003 letter to Dick Peterson, vice president of the corporate human resources department, Anda stated that she “enjoyed working with many of the people of Wickes, ... had the privilege to work with some very hard working and dedicated employees, including Jamie Lambert and Dave Bruber, ... [and] believe[d] that they have both tried to deal with these disciplinary actions regarding Ryan Carlson to the best of their abilities.” Anda attached a description of the September 29 events and her September 30 phone conversation with Lambert.
Anda also talked with Alisa Schuene-man, an employee in Wickes’s corporate human resources department. She told Schueneman of her complaints concerning Carlson’s behavior, and Schueneman said she would investigate. In an October 15, 2003 letter to Schueneman, Anda claimed that she previously told Lambert that Carlson made a comment to Anda that “Jamie [Lambert] can lick my bunghole” and that Carlson told Flores and Enga to “[m]ake sure you use protection” as they left the store on September 17, 2003. On October 15, Wickes terminated Carlson’s employment.
On March 11, 2004, Anda filed a charge of sex discrimination with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (“MDHR”), which was cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). After receiving right to sue letters, Anda filed the instant federal suit alleging sex discrimination based on a hostile work environment and constructive discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. § 363A.01 et seq.
During discovery in this lawsuit, Anda described a series of sexual harassment incidents involving numerous Wickes’s employees that she had not reported to Wickes’s management. Knott told Anda that he wanted to have sex with her daughter, asked her what she would do if she found her daughter in bed with two men, and said her daughter would enjoy that experience. Knott also told Anda that she was the same size as his wife and that he wanted to bend her over a sofa to see what it would be like to have sex with his wife on that sofa. On another occasion, Knott put Anda’s head in his groin and said, “Blow me.” Knott also would come towards Anda from behind and lift her in a bear hug. Knott and Carlson referred to Anda and Gargaro as “cunts” and “bitches.” Flores called Anda the “virgin Mary” and “mother of God” because she told male salespeople that they said inappropriate things. He hugged Anda from behind, told her that her daughter was hot and jumped on her while she was sitting on a sofa and simulated having sex with her. Clark hugged Anda, grabbed her breast and said it was firm, jumped on top of her and told Anda that Enga was slutty. Mack made comments to Anda about her sex life and told Anda that Enga was loose and hot. He also complained that Wickes did not hire more attractive women. Bru-ber, the store manager, asked Anda if Enga was bisexual, told Anda that two women wanted to make a sandwich out of him at another Wickes store, and told Anda that he wrongly was written up for sexual harassment at that store.
The district court granted Wickes’s summary judgment motion. It found that Anda’s hostile work environment claim failed because she did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Wickes failed to take prompt and effective remedial action on her complaints about Carlson’s conduct and whether Wickes knew or should *531 have know of the incidents she had not reported to Wickes’s management. The district court then determined that Anda’s state law claim was barred by the statute of limitations because it was filed more than forty-five days after her receipt of the right to sue letter from the MDHR. 2 Finally, the district court found that Anda’s constructive discharge claim failed because she did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Wickes deliberately created hostile working conditions and whether she gave Wickes a reasonable opportunity to remedy the alleged harassment.
II. DISCUSSION
‘We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences, without resort to speculation, in favor of the non-moving party.”
Johnson v. Ready Mixed Concrete Co.,
424
F.3d 806, 810
(8th Cir.2005). “Summary judgment is appropriate if the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Peterson v. Scott County,
In order to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, “[a] plaintiff may not merely point to unsupported self-serving allegations.”
Bass v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc.,
A. Hostile Work Environment
As this court has previously discussed,
Sexual discrimination that creates a hostile or abusive work environment is a violation of Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A hostile work environment arises when sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Hostile work environment claims are limited in nature, requiring a high evi-dentiary showing that the plaintiffs workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.
To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that she was a member of a protected group; (2) the occurrence of unwelcome harassment; (3) a causal nexus between the harassment and her membership in the protected group; (4) that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment *532 and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action.
Vajdl v. Mesabi Acad. of KidsPeace, Inc.,
Turning first to what Wickes knew at the time of Anda’s resignation, Anda made several unspecified complaints to Bruber about Carlson’s behavior during 2003 and provided Bruber a letter on September 20, after the September 6 incident, that listed eleven complaints, most of them non-sexual in nature and referring to arguments over customers and gossip between salespeople. Her letter also included complaints about the incident when Anda called Carlson a “leviathan” and other incidents when Carlson commented on whether Anda and Enga used a “strap on,” kicked Anda in the back of her leg, and said that Anda had a large butt. These isolated comments, only two of which have any sexual overtones, do not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the workplace was so permeated with discriminatory conduct that a hostile work environment under Title VII existed.
See Carpenter v. Con-Way Cent. Express, Inc.,
Even if these allegations rose to the level of sexual harassment, Wickes took prompt and effective remedial action to address Anda’s complaints. On September 21, Bruber issued a written reprimand to Carlson. On September 30, Lambert told Anda that Wickes did not want to lose Anda as an employee and that the process of investigating and disciplining Carlson was ongoing. Wickes then terminated Carlson’s employment on October 15. Because the undisputed evidence shows that Wickes dealt with Anda’s specific complaints about Carlson in a prompt and effective manner, Anda does not raise a material question of fact as to whether Wickes failed to take prompt and effective remedial action.
Beyond Anda’s complaints about Carlson, the record is void of any evidence that Anda reported the alleged incidents of sexual harassment between herself and Knott, Flores, Clark and Mack to Wickes before she resigned on September 29. Instead, Anda argues that Wickes knew of the unreported incidents because Bruber, the store manager, sexually harassed her with his question about Enga’s sexual preference and his comments that two women at another Wickes store wanted to make a sandwich out of him and that he wrongly was written up for sexual harassment. She claims that these statements by a manager imputed knowledge of all of the other harassing incidents to Wickes. First, these statements are not evidence that Bruber knew of the incidents involving Knott, Flores, Clark and Mack. Second, Bruber’s statements were not directed at Anda and do not rise to the level of severe or pervasive conduct necessary for a hostile work environment claim.
See Vajdl,
Anda next argues that Wickes should have known of the full extent of the alleged harassing conduct that she had not reported to Wickes’s management. She contends that Bruber’s statement in his deposition that he would have seen the alleged acts if they had occurred creates a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Wickes should have known about the conduct. However, when that response is put in context, it becomes apparent that Bruber simply was denying any knowledge of the unreported incidents.
Q: [Y]ou told me for the most part that you didn’t see [what Anda alleges] and as far as you knew, you never heard about anything like that and Ms. Anda never complained about any of those things; right?
Bruber: Yes.
Q: And it is fair to say that those allegations are referenced behaviors that are not what you experienced at Wickes; right?
Bruber: Correct.
Q: Nothing like that ever occurred as far as you know?
Bruber: Correct.
Q: But let me ask you this: I mean from the fact that you would be typically out on the floor, I assume that other managers, that’s what they are supposed to do, also be out on the floor making sure customers are being served?
Bruber: There were different levels, yes.
Q: Would you agree with me that if that stuff was happening, it would be hard not to notice that stuff?
Bruber: Yes.
Bruber’s Deposition at 96-97. We fail to see how Bruber’s response of “yes” shows that he should have known of the unreported incidents when he just finished testifying that he did not see them. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from Bruber’s statement, without resorting to speculation, is that he was confident that the incidents did not occur because he thought he would have noticed them had they occurred.
See Johnson,
Anda next argues that Wickes had a rule requiring a complaining employee to have two witnesses before bringing a complaint to management (the “two-witness rule”) and that this rule demonstrates that Wickes should have known about the conduct because the rule discouraged employees from reporting sexual harassment. Even if such a rule could be used to prove that Wickes should have known about the unreported incidents, Anda fails to provide sufficient probative evidence to support the existence of this rule. First, she testified that Gargaro told her about the rule while they both worked at Home Life Furniture, a different company. A rule of another company is not evidence that the same rule exists at Wickes. Anda also
*534
testified that salespeople at Wiekes’s other store locations told her that their managers told them about the rule. This testimony is inadmissible hearsay that Anda cannot use to avoid summary judgment.
See Cherry v. Ritenour Sch. Dist.,
Anda argues that the existence of the two-witness rule also is supported by Bru-ber’s response to her September 29 complaint about Carlson when he asked if she had any witnesses of the incident. This single question does not provide sufficient probative evidence to raise a material question of fact that Wickes adhered to a two-witness rule. Additionally, Anda’s vague, self-serving allegations that managers told the salespeople to work out their problems by themselves and not to report incidents unless they had a witness is not sufficient to support the existence of a two-witness rule that discouraged salespeople from reporting problems to Wickes.
See Bass,
With respect to the unreported incidents of sexual harassment, Anda did not provide sufficient probative evidence to raise a material question of fact as to whether Wickes knew or should have known about the incidents and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action. As for the incidents known to Wickes’s management, they do not rise to the level of severe or pervasive conduct necessary for a hostile work environment claim, and Wickes took prompt and effective remedial action with respect to Carlson. Therefore, the district court correctly held that Anda did not establish a prima facie ease of a hostile work environment and granted summary judgment to Wickes.
B. Constructive Discharge
“To prove a case of constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show (1) a reasonable person in [her] situation would find the working conditions intolerable, and (2) the employer intended to force [her] to quit.”
Carpenter,
Anda’s constructive discharge claim fails because Anda provided no evidence that Wickes intended to force Anda to quit. Instead, when Anda gave Bruber her two-week notice of resignation, Bruber asked her not to quit. Lambert also asked Anda to stay at Wickes and expressed disappointment when Anda told Lambert she was not returning to work. Anda’s own letter to Peterson after she quit also supports the finding that her supervisors did not intent to force Anda to quit. She wrote that she “believed that [Lambert and Bruber] have both tried to deal with these disciplinary actions regarding Ryan Carlson to the best of their abilities.” Without some evidence that the managers at Wickes did not want Anda to continue *535 to work at Wickes, Anda has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to support a conclusion that Wickes intended to force Anda to quit.
Furthermore, Anda did not give Wickes a reasonable opportunity to correct the intolerable working conditions she alleged in her deposition. Wickes clearly did not know the full extent of Anda’s complaints regarding the other salespeople when she resigned on September 29. Anda had only complained about Carlson’s behavior, and Wickes took action concerning those complaints. Without any knowledge of the unreported incidents, Wickes did not have a reasonable opportunity to correct the intolerable conditions detailed in Anda’s deposition.
Because Anda has failed to create a material question of fact as to whether Wickes intended to force her to quit and failed to grant Wickes a reasonable opportunity to correct the situation, we agree with the district court that Anda failed to establish constructive discharge.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Wickes.