Pennsylvania State Police v. Nancy Drew Suders (542 U.S. 129)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 14, 2004 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 542 U.S. 129 · 124 S. Ct. 2342
- Decided
- June 14, 2004
- Term
- October Term 2003
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. . Plaintiff-respondent Nancy Drew Suders alleged sexually harassing conduct by her supervisors, officers of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), of such severity she was forced to resign. The question presented concerns the proof burdens parties bear when a sexual harassment/constructive discharge claim of that character is asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To establish hostile work environment, plaintiffs like Su-ders must show harassing behavior “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [their] employment.” Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57, 67 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U. S. 17, 22 (1993) (“[T]he very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to employees because of their ... gender ... offends Title VII’s broad rule of workplace equality.”). Beyond that, we hold, to establish “constructive discharge,” the plaintiff must make a further showing: She must show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that her resignation qualified as a fitting response. An employer may defend against such a claim by showing both (1) that it had installed a readily accessible and effective policy for reporting and resolving complaints of…
Excerpt of a 39,585-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.