Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders
542 U.S. 129, 159 L. Ed. 2d 204, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4176 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a Title VII hostile work environment claim, an employer may assert the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense unless the plaintiff's resignation was a constructive discharge precipitated by a tangible employment action, which is an official act of the enterprise such as a demotion, extreme pay cut, or undesirable reassignment.
Facts:
- In March 1998, the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) hired Nancy Drew Suders as a police communications operator.
- Three of Suders' supervisors—Sergeant Easton, Corporal Baker, and Corporal Prendergast—subjected her to a continuous barrage of sexual harassment, including obscene gestures, vulgar comments, and intimidation.
- In June 1998, Suders contacted PSP's Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, Virginia Smith-Elliott, stating she 'might need some help,' but no action was taken.
- On August 18, 1998, Suders again contacted Smith-Elliott, stating she was being harassed and was afraid. Smith-Elliott told her to file a complaint but did not provide the necessary form.
- Suders came to believe her supervisors were falsely reporting that she failed a required computer skills exam.
- She took her exam papers from a locker room drawer, intending to prove they were never graded.
- Her supervisors discovered the papers were missing, dusted the area with theft-detection powder, and set up a plan to arrest her.
- When Suders attempted to return the papers, her hands were stained by the powder, and her supervisors apprehended, handcuffed, photographed, and interrogated her, at which point she tendered her resignation.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Drew Suders sued the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging sexual harassment and constructive discharge in violation of Title VII.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the PSP.
- The District Court held that the PSP was not vicariously liable for the supervisors' conduct because Suders unreasonably failed to avail herself of the PSP's internal procedures for reporting harassment, thus establishing the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense.
- Suders, as the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with the PSP as the appellee.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a proven constructive discharge constitutes a 'tangible employment action,' which automatically precludes the employer from using the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the circuit courts on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a constructive discharge resulting from supervisor-created hostile work environment harassment always constitute a 'tangible employment action' that precludes an employer from asserting the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense under Title VII?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. A constructive discharge resulting from a supervisor's harassment is not, in and of itself, a 'tangible employment action' that strips an employer of the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. To be considered a tangible employment action, the constructive discharge must be precipitated by an official act of the employer, such as a humiliating demotion, an extreme cut in pay, or a transfer to an unbearable position. The Court reasoned that a constructive discharge is an aggravated form of hostile work environment, not an official company act like a firing. When no official act underlies the resignation, the employer's vicarious liability is less certain, justifying the availability of the affirmative defense. This defense requires the employer to prove (1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment, and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to use the employer's preventive or corrective procedures. Allowing the defense when no official act is involved incentivizes employers to create effective anti-harassment policies and encourages employees to report misconduct before it becomes intolerable.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. A constructive discharge should not be treated as equivalent to an actual discharge because the modern definition has strayed too far from its origins, which required a deliberate act by the employer intended to force a resignation. The Court's standard—that the environment became so intolerable the resignation was a 'fitting response'—makes constructive discharge merely an 'aggravated case of hostile work environment.' In such cases, where no tangible employment action is present, the standard for employer liability should be negligence. An employer should only be liable if it knew or should have known about the supervisor's conduct and failed to stop it. Since Suders did not show an adverse employment action or that the PSP was negligent, her claim should fail.
Analysis:
This decision refines the Ellerth/Faragher framework by clarifying the status of constructive discharge claims. It establishes that a constructive discharge is not automatically equivalent to a formal termination for purposes of employer liability. By requiring a 'tangible employment action' to precipitate the discharge before precluding the employer's affirmative defense, the Court creates a crucial analytical step for lower courts. This holding prevents the anomalous result where a plaintiff with a more severe constructive discharge claim would have an easier path to victory than one with a standard hostile work environment claim. The decision solidifies the importance of an official company act as the trigger for strict vicarious liability in harassment cases.
