On Dec. 1, 2003, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a constructive discharge caused by a supervisor's sexual harassment constitutes a tangible employment action that bars an employer from raising the defense that the employee unreasonably failed to employ the employer's procedures for preventing and correcting such conduct.
<i>Ellerth/Faragher</i> Affirmative Action Defense: Resolving the Conflict
On Dec. 1, 2003, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a constructive discharge caused by a supervisor's sexual harassment constitutes a tangible employment action that bars an employer from raising the defense that the employee unreasonably failed to employ the employer's procedures for preventing and correcting such conduct. In granting the Pennsylvania State Police's request for review from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's decision in <i>Suders v. Easton</i>, 325 F.3d 432 (3d Cir. 2003), the Supreme Court has the opportunity to resolve a growing conflict among the circuit courts regarding the availability of the so-called <i>Ellerth/Faragher</i> affirmative defense in constructive discharge cases.
By
Albert J. Solecki, JR. And Lori A. MazurThis premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
