CHAPTER 11: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND DIVERSITY 23
whole or in part.
Some provisions expressly restrict a jurisdiction-conferring statute, such as 42 U.S.C. Section 405(h), which
Suppose that the lower court had determined that the Moonlight’s drivers and owners qualified as
employees for Title VII purposes. How might the course of this case have been changed? The lower court
would have most likely upheld its judgment. This issue then would not have been appealed to the United States
Supreme Court, at least not by Arbaugh. Y & H might have appealed the decision on a different ground, however
reversed and remanded, holding that the Ellerth/Faragher defense is not available in constructive discharge cases.
The PSP appealed. In Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, the United States Supreme Court vacated and
remanded. To establish constructive discharge, a plaintiff alleging sexual harassment must show that the work
environment became so intolerable that resignation was a fitting response. An employer may then assert the
Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense unless the plaintiff quit in reasonable response to a tangible employment action.
Under the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense
would have been eliminated in all hostile-environment constructive discharge cases, but retained in other hostile-
environment cases (not involving tangible employment actions). How would the courts’ consideration of these
cases then differ from determinations accorded under the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Pennsylvania case?
As the Court explained, “[t]hat placement of the line, anomalously, would make the graver claim of hostile-
constructive discharge claim. It makes scant sense thus to alter the decisive instructions from one claim to the next
when the only variation between the two claims is the severity of the hostile working conditions.
If the plaintiff had resigned in response to an official act on the part of the employer, would the result
have been different? Yes, or at least the holding would have been different. Neither the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
might the result have been different? This action might have buttressed Suders’ case, as evidence of what the
employer knew and what the employee did. If the complaint had been responded to, action might have been taken to