William 0. Turner appeals the district court’s 2 grant of summary judgment in favor of Honeywell Federal Manufacturing and Technologies, LLC, (Honeywell) on his claims of racial discrimination brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We affirm.
I.
Honeywell manages a facility at which non-nuclear war reserve materials are manufactured under contract with the United States Department of Energy (DOE). Turner, a fifty-eight-year old African-American man, was hired by Honeywell as a machinist trainee in April 1967, following his honorable discharge from the United States Air Force. Over the next decade, Turner was promoted to successive production planner positions, in which he gained significant purchasing and manufacturing experience. Also during this time, Turner received a bachelor’s degree in business administration, with an emphasis in labor and industrial relations, from Central Missouri State University. In 1982, Turner received a master’s degree in business administration, with a concentration in business management, from Central Michigan University.
In 1976, Turner was promoted to buyer associate. He held this position until 1979, when he was upgraded to buyer. Later that year, Turner was promoted to the first-level management position of purchasing supervisor within the purchasing division. This was the last promotion Turner received while employed by Honeywell. Turner resigned his employment at Honeywell in 2000 and has since been employed as a contract specialist for the United States Marine Corps.
During his twenty-one year tenure as a purchasing supervisor/manager in Honeywell’s purchasing division, Turner gained both production and non-production experience. Turner occasionally performed responsibilities of the second-level management positions in addition to satisfying the requirements of his position. Turner received numerous performance evaluations from his supervisors, the majority of which were positive and indicated exceptional *719 performance. Beginning in 1991, however, the performance evaluations increasingly were critical of his interpersonal and leadership skills. Turner was described in evaluations as “antagonistic, defensive, arrogant, [and] vindictive and ... [as] relyfing] on the power of his position rather than teamwork and consensus budding to accomplish his responsibilities.” A 1992 Performance Appraisal recommended that Turner improve relationships with peers, as did subsequent annual evaluations.
The end of the Cold War contributed to a decline in demand for defense reserve materials in the 1990s. Consequently, DOE considered closing Honeywell’s facility. To enable it to remain open, Honeywell underwent significant corporate restructuring, reducing its workforce from approximately 8,000 to 3,000 employees. These reductions and restructuring changes affected each of Honeywell’s divisions.
During the course of the restructuring, four second-level management positions opened and were filled. Honeywell has an established process for posting job opportunities and hiring employees. The process provides business-needs exceptions from the general rule requiring posting. Honeywell’s formal process does not govern hiring in such situations, which include “reclassification of an associate who is already doing the work of the new classification^] lateral movement of an associate with the same classification as the job opportunity and who is within the same division as the job opportunity[;] university recruiting and external searehesf; and] movement of associates to address business issues; such moves to be approved by the President or Vice President.”
Four second-level managerial positions form the basis of Turner’s failure-to-promote claims: (1) manager of material, filled in November 1997; (2, 3) manager of purchasing operations, filled in February 1996 and again in December 1997; and (4) manager of logistics, filled in February 1998. The positions were not posted and were filled pursuant to the business-needs exception to the posting requirement. Honeywell’s then-president Karen Clegg authorized the decisions not to announce the positions and approved the hiring of all four individuals, all of whom are white males. Management explained that the exception applied because the positions composed a “major functional realignment, [the] reorganization of the procurement division that included purchasing .... ” The record indicates that the employees who were hired had not been aware that they were being considered for the positions.
From late 1999 through spring 2000, in an effort to comply with DOE’s directive to reduce Honeywell’s facility by one third, management transferred many responsibilities and job functions of Turner and his staff to another department. This transfer streamlined the procurement function and addressed numerous inventory initiatives. After these responsibilities were transferred, Turner retained his management position and many of his responsibilities.
As indicated above, Turner left Honeywell in 2000 and subsequently filed this lawsuit, in which he alleged that Honeywell had discriminated against him on the basis of his race by failing to promote him on four different occasions, by the terms and conditions of his employment, and by constructively discharging him. It is from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Honeywell on all claims that Turner now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo,
reading the record in a light most favorable to the
*720
nonmoving party and giving the nonmov-ing party the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn from the record.
Hannoon v. Fawn Eng’g Corp.,
III. Argument
A.
Because Turner did not present direct evidence of discrimination, his discrimination claims are analyzed under the burden-shifting framework adopted in
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green,
The district court held that Turner failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under § 1981 because he failed to show both that he was qualified for the positions to which he was denied promotion and that “similarly situated employee[s] outside the protected group [were] promoted instead.”
Dotson v. Delta Consol. Indus., Inc.,
We agree with Turner that the district court applied a higher threshold of proof than is required by our cases and that it thus erred in finding that Turner had not established a prima facie case of racial discrimination. As will be seen, however, we agree with the district court that Turner failed to establish a question of fact concerning whether Honeywell’s proffered non-discriminatory reason for failing to promote him was pretextual.
To prove that he was qualified for the positions for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrim
*721
ination, Turner need not have shown, as the district court required, that he was more than minimally qualified for the positions. As we stated in
McCullough v. Real Foods, Inc.,
Limited descriptions of the duties, responsibilities, experience, knowledge, and skill required for the positions are contained in “Salaried Classification Descriptions.” Turner’s qualifications satisfy the objective experience and knowledge/skill requirements enumerated in these descriptions. 3 Notably, these descriptions do not include the specific qualifications and selection criteria enumerated by Honeywell management in testimony, such as teamwork and interpersonal skills. Turner has extensive purchasing and production experience, including supervisory experience. As noted above, he also has both bachelor’s and master’s degrees in business administration. While employed by Honeywell, Turner demonstrated that he performed his job responsibilities well and had education and experience that rendered him “qualified” for the positions. Accordingly, we conclude that Turner was qualified for the positions to which he was not promoted and that he thus satisfied the second element of his prima facie casé.
Turner also contends that the district court erred by determining that he failed to establish that Honeywell “promoted a person of similar qualification who was not a member of the protected group.”
Turner v. Honeywell Fed. Mfg. & Techs., LLC,
No. 00-0878-CV-W-RE L, slip op. at 130 (W.D.Mo. Oct. 24, 2002). The court stated, “The Eighth Circuit has routinely held that the fourth element of a prima facie case for a failure-to-promote race discrimination case requires the plaintiff to
*722
establish that he and the successful candidate had similar qualifications.”
Id.
at 132 (citing
Dotson
Notwithstanding the variations in the phrasing our cases have employed in discussing the fourth prong of a prima facie case, the test is less rigid than that adopted by the district court in this case and focuses most significantly on the plaintiffs demonstration that the promotion was given to an individual who is not a member of the protected' class.
Shannon,
B.
Turner next contends that the district court erred by determining that Honeywell articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for failing to promote Turner sufficient to overcome any presumption of discrimination that would have arisen had Turner established a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Turner also challenges the court’s determination that he did not present evidence creating an issue of fact concerning whether Honeywell’s reasons were pretextual. Turner asserts that the district court misapplied the law at this stage of the
McDonnell Douglas
*723
analysis by using the “defunct pretext-plus analysis,” and by failing to consider the evidence used at the prima facie stage to analyze whether Honeywell’s reasons for failing to promote Turner were pretextual.
See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. Inc.,
If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, “a rebuttable presumption of discrimination arises .... ”
McCullough,
We conclude that Honeywell was “able to satisfy the second level of ... inquiry and rebut [any] presumption of discrimination by articulating a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for failing to promote” Turner.
Lidge-Myrtil,
Because Honeywell rebutted the presumption of discrimination, the burden shifted back to Turner, requiring that he present evidence of discrimination sufficient to create a question for the jury.
Chock,
C.
Turner contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Honeywell on his constructive discharge claim. An employee has been constructively discharged “when an employer, through action or inaction, renders an employee’s working conditions so intolerable that the employee essentially is forced to terminate [his] employment.”
Hunt v. Missouri, Dep’t of Corrections,
must have been severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment, and additionally the plaintiff must subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive. A plaintiff may satisfy this intent requirement by showing the intolerable situation created by the employer was such that the employer could reasonably foresee that the employee would quit.
Tadlock v. Powell,
Turner alleges that Honeywell’s failure to promote him and the April 2000 transfer of duties constituted adverse employment actions that rendered his employment intolerable, compelling him to quit. We disagree. Turner did not present evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Honeywell rendered his working conditions so intolerable as to cause his resignation and that Honeywell intended or reasonably foresaw this result. Furthermore, Turner’s job title, management level, salary, and benefits were not adversely affected by changes in his job responsibilities. Because the evidence supports its finding that a reasonable, objective person would not have felt compelled to resign, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Honeywell on this issue.
We find Turner’s remaining argument to be without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
Notes
. The Honorable Robert E. Larsen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
. Manager, Purchasing Operations, requires that a successful applicant have as experience "[sjeveral years in the purchasing field including supervisory experience,” in addition to a “[bjachelor’s degree or an equivalent combination of formal training and experience in a technical, professional, or administrative field.”
Manager, Materiel, requires that a successful applicant have "[mjore than ten years in production management, purchasing, or related activities[,j” in addition to a “[bjachelor degree or an equivalent combination of formal training and experience in a technical, professional, or administrative field.”
Manager, Logistics, requires that a successful applicant have "[sjeveral years in the purchasing field including supervisory experience[,j” in addition to a "[bjachelor degree or an equivalent combination of formal training and experience in a technical, professional, or administrative held.”