[20040618]RS21702_性骚扰、推定解雇和雇主的肯定性辩护：美国最高法院在宾夕法尼亚州警察诉苏德斯案中的裁决.pdf

1 524 U.S. 775 (1998).2 524 U.S. 742 (1998).Congressional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS21702Updated June 18, 2004Sexual Harassment, Constructive Discharge,and Employers Affirmative Defenses: The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Pennsylvania State Police v. Sudersname redactedLegislative AttorneyAmerican Law DivisionSummaryOn June 14, 2004 the Supreme Court resolved a conflict among the federal circuitsconcerning the defenses, if any, that may be available to an employer against anemployees claim that she was forced to resign because of “intolerable” sexualharassment at the hands of a supervisor. An employer may generally assert anaffirmative defense to supervisory harassment under the Courts 1998 rulings inFarager v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth. The defenseis not available, however, if the harassment includes a “tangible employment action,”such as discharge or demotion. In Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, the plaintiffclaimed the tangible adverse action was supervisory harassment so severe that it drovethe employee to quit, a constructive discharge in effect. The Court, in