Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders
case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
2004 U.S. Lexis 4176
CASE SYNOPSIS: Respondent former
employee sued petitioner employer, alleging that sexual harassment by
her supervisors which caused her to resign constituted a constructive
discharge. Upon the grant of a writ of certiorari, the employer
appealed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit which held that the employee was not required to avail
herself of the employer's remedial procedures.
FACTS: The employer contended that no tangible employment action occurred to hold the employer liable for the supervisors' alleged harassment where the employee failed to take advantage of the employer's process for dealing with workplace harassment claims. The employee argued that the constructive discharge was itself a tangible employment action, and thus the employer could be liable without exhaustion of the employer's remedial process. The United States Supreme Court held that, in the absence of an employer-sanctioned adverse employment action, the alleged constructive discharge did not by itself provide a basis for vicarious liability of the employer without giving the employer an opportunity to remedy the harassment. The uncertainty involved in determining the extent of official employer action in creating or tolerating a hostile work environment justified affording the employer the chance to establish, through the affirmative exhaustion defense, that it should not be held vicariously liable. It was the employer's burden, however, to demonstrate the existence of an effective remedial process and the employee's unreasonable failure to utilize the process.
CONCLUSION: The judgment precluding the employer from asserting the affirmative exhaustion defense was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
FACTS: The employer contended that no tangible employment action occurred to hold the employer liable for the supervisors' alleged harassment where the employee failed to take advantage of the employer's process for dealing with workplace harassment claims. The employee argued that the constructive discharge was itself a tangible employment action, and thus the employer could be liable without exhaustion of the employer's remedial process. The United States Supreme Court held that, in the absence of an employer-sanctioned adverse employment action, the alleged constructive discharge did not by itself provide a basis for vicarious liability of the employer without giving the employer an opportunity to remedy the harassment. The uncertainty involved in determining the extent of official employer action in creating or tolerating a hostile work environment justified affording the employer the chance to establish, through the affirmative exhaustion defense, that it should not be held vicariously liable. It was the employer's burden, however, to demonstrate the existence of an effective remedial process and the employee's unreasonable failure to utilize the process.
CONCLUSION: The judgment precluding the employer from asserting the affirmative exhaustion defense was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment