Employment · Primary-source case analysis

Suders: A Constructive Discharge Does Not Always Eliminate the Employer Harassment Defense

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 31, 2026

Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders reviewed a Title VII claim by a police communications operator who alleged severe supervisor harassment, an ineffective response to her request for help, an arrest over testing papers, and resignation after the working environment became intolerable.

Constructive discharge requires more than an actionable hostile environment

A hostile-environment claim requires severe or pervasive conduct that alters the conditions of employment. Constructive discharge adds a higher threshold: the conditions must become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to resign. The inquiry is objective rather than dependent only on the employee's subjective reaction.

The Court tied employer liability to the Faragher-Ellerth framework

Supervisor harassment that culminates in a tangible employment action is treated as an official act of the enterprise and generally produces vicarious liability without the affirmative defense. When no tangible employment action occurs, the employer may try to prove that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment and that the employee unreasonably failed to use available preventive or corrective opportunities.

A resignation is not automatically an official act

A constructive discharge can result from unofficial supervisor or coworker conduct rather than from an act that formally changes employment status. The mere fact that the employee resigned therefore does not itself place every constructive-discharge claim in the strict-liability category.

The defense is unavailable when an official act precipitates the resignation

The employer may assert the affirmative defense unless the employee quit in reasonable response to an official adverse action, such as a humiliating demotion, an extreme pay cut, or a transfer into unbearable conditions. The Court vacated the Third Circuit's broader rule and remanded while agreeing that genuine factual disputes remained on the hostile-environment and constructive-discharge claims.

Key takeaways

• Evaluate separately whether harassment was actionable and whether conditions met the higher constructive-discharge threshold.
• Identify any official act that changed employment status or situation before the resignation.
• Preserve the employer's prevention, reporting, investigation, and corrective-action evidence.
• Track what reporting options the employee knew about, used, or reasonably viewed as ineffective.