Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Suders: Constructive Discharge and the Supervisor-Harassment Defense

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 13, 2026

Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders connects the hostile-environment constructive-discharge standard with the rules governing an employer’s vicarious liability for supervisor harassment.

The employee alleged a campaign of supervisor harassment

Nancy Suders alleged that supervisors subjected her to sexual harassment, intimidation, and an incident that led to her arrest before charges were withdrawn. She resigned and claimed the conditions amounted to a constructive discharge.

Constructive discharge requires intolerable conditions

A plaintiff must show that discriminatory working conditions became so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign. The inquiry is more demanding than proving a hostile environment alone because it also asks whether resignation was a reasonable response.

The affirmative defense usually remains available

When supervisor harassment produces no tangible employment action, an employer may seek the Faragher-Ellerth defense by showing reasonable preventive and corrective care and an employee’s unreasonable failure to use available protections. A constructive discharge does not automatically eliminate that defense.

An official act changes the liability analysis

The defense is unavailable when an official company act, such as a demotion, humiliating reassignment, or comparable formal action, precipitates the resignation. The Court vacated and remanded so the governing framework could be applied to the record.

Key takeaways

• Separate the hostile-environment showing from the additional constructive-discharge requirement.
• Identify any formal employment act that precipitated the resignation.
• Preserve evidence of reporting channels and corrective responses.
• Assess whether the employee reasonably used available preventive procedures.