Direct Termination vs. Constructive Discharge
The law recognizes that employees need not be explicitly “fired” by their employer to be able to assert a case based on the wrongful nature of the employment termination. In some settings, most notably those involving a minority shareholder in a corporation. intentionally forcing someone out of a business is called “freezing them out.” In the employment context, when an employer intentionally makes the workplace so intolerable that it causes an employee to resign, it is known as a “constructive discharge.”
In California, the leading case on the constructive discharge doctrine is the California Supreme Court case of Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238. Both California and federal law recognize the doctrine of constructive discharge. (E.g., Draper v. Coeur Rochester, Inc. (9th Cir. 1998) 147 F.3d 1104.)
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Is a constructive discharge by itself something that an employee may file a legal claim over?
A: No. A constructive discharge is simply a species of employment termination that does not treat the employee as having voluntarily quit by their own choice. A constructive discharge where the employer forced the employee to quit does not create liability unless the reason for causing the employee to quit is itself independently illegal. (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1251.)
Q: What is the purpose of the constructive discharge doctrine?
A: According to the California Supreme Court, the constructive discharge doctrine is intended to prevent employers from circumventing the law by intentionally forcing an employee to resign and then claiming that the employee’s harm was self-inflicted by their own voluntary action to resign. (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1244.)
Q: Can an employee who has quit their job sue for discriminatory firing or for termination in violation of public policy?
A: Yes. Once an employee can prove that their resignation was involuntary and qualified as a constructive discharge, an employee may use that adverse employment action (i.e., the discharge) as part of a larger claim for illegal discrimination, retaliation, or termination in violation of public policy.
Q: May an employee prove a claim of constructive discharge if the employer did not want or intend the employee to quit?
A: No. A constructive discharge is recognized only in those circumstances where the employer intentionally causes the employee to quit. An employee who decides to resign under circumstances that were not intentionally created or permitted by the employer for purposes of driving the employee to quit would not have a basis for claiming constructive discharge. Whether the employer intended to bring about the employee’s resignation is often a disputed point in lawsuits involving a claim under the constructive discharge doctrine.
Q: What must an employee show in order to prove that they did not voluntarily quit, but were constructively discharged?
A: Under California law, an employee may establish a constructive discharge as part of a larger claim of illegal termination by showing two things: (1) that the employer intentionally created, or knowingly permitted working conditions to exist, that were so intolerable that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have had no reasonable alternative except to resign and (2) that the plaintiff actually resigned because of those intolerable working conditions.
Q: Is intentionally creating an annoying or unpleasant working environment sufficient to cause a constructive discharge under the law.
A: No. Generally speaking, the type of circumstances giving rise to a cognizable constructive discharge must be “unusually aggravated” or amount to a “continuous pattern” before the circumstances will be deemed so intolerable as bring about a constructive discharge. In general, single, trivial, or isolated acts of misconduct are not sufficient to support a constructive discharge claim.
Q: May a poor performance review that is intended to cause an employee to quit enough under the constructive discharge doctrine?
A: No. Even if accompanied by a demotion or a wage reduction, a poor performance review, without more, is insufficient to create the circumstances where the law would find a constructive discharge. (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1247.)
Q: May an employee establish a constructive discharge based on the employee’s subjective reaction to their workplace conditions even if a reasonable person under the same circumstances would not have been compelled to resign?
A: No. under California law, the focus is on the objective nature of the working conditions, not on the plaintiff’s subjective reaction to those conditions. In other words, an employee’s unreasonable sensitivity to events in their workplace environment does not reduce the burden of proof they must sustain under the constructive discharge doctrine. (Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1248, 1272.)
PLEASE NOTE: The above legal guide is intended for general informational purposes only. Nothing contained in the guide is intended to provide legal advice and does not apply to any particular set of facts or circumstances. Readers with questions about anything presented in the above guide should seek the advice of legal counsel.