WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today joined a broad coalition of civil rights groups in urging the Supreme Court to rule that a female police officer's forced resignation due to severe sexual harassment is deserving of monetary damages, just as it would be if she were wrongfully discharged.
In a classic "constructive discharge" case, Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 03-95, the ACLU said that the officer, Nancy Drew Suders, did not choose to leave her job. Rather, she was forced to resign because of a combination of workplace conditions that gave her no other choice. Historically, the Supreme Court and the federal appeals courts have recognized such claims, holding employers financially liable for wrongful discharge when intolerable work conditions force an employee to resign.
"Nancy Drew Suders was forced to endure unbearable harassment by her direct supervisors at the Pennsylvania State Police," said Lenora Lapidus, director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "Because her work conditions were so hostile, combined with ineffective procedures that did not remedy the sexual harassment, she was left with no choice but to resign."
Noting that the appeals court ruled in Suders' favor, Lapidus added: "We look to the Supreme Court to affirm that all employers are financially liable for constructive discharge terminations, just as they are for outright dismissals. There is no reason to find differently when the basis for the discharge is severe sexual harassment."
In appealing the lower court decision, the Pennsylvania State Police claimed that they are not liable for damages because Suders was "unreasonable" in not taking advantage of the remedies available to her. But in rejecting that claim, the lower court noted that before a jury can consider such a defense, it must first decide whether a constructive discharge existed - and part of the constructive discharge claim involves proving that there was no avenue short of resignation "reasonably" available to the employee.
The brief in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders is online at
/cpredirect/13850