## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 T RE NT L. C HA PIN , P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. F O RT -R O HR M O TO RS, I NC ., D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
. Appeals from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, FortWayne D ivisi on. No . 1:06- CV-00034

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngmann,Ju dge
. A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 3, 2010

Befo re F LA UM, W I L L I A MS, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Tr e n tL
. C h a p i n w a s e mplo yed bythe B ob R ohrm an A uto Group as a ca r sal esm an. Fo l l owing hi s t er m i nati on a t o ne Rohr m an- own ed deal er shi p, Chapin fi l ed a c om p l ai nt with the Equal Em plo ym ent Opportuni ty Com m i ssi on, al l eging tha t th e m anag erdi sc r i m i na te d a g ains t whi te Chr i st i an s infav or of P ak ist an i M u slim s. H i s n ew em p loy er , a se c on d R oh rm an -ow n ed d ea ler sh ip , he ar d ab ou t t h is2 N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177

A ltho u g h th e p arties refer to M id -States as “A cu ra” an d Fo rt- 1 Roh r a s “To yot a ” i n the i r br i e f s , we wi l l r e fe r t o the m by the ir lega l nam es, M id -States an d Fo rt-R oh r, w h e n i t is ne cess ar y t o di s t i ngui s h be t weenthe t wo. and thre ate ned to fi re Ch ap i n unle ss the c om pla i nt was w ithd raw n . A fter this threatw as m ad e, C ha p in l eft w or k a nd neve r re turned, despi te For t- Rohr M oto rs , I nc . ’ s ( “F o r t- Ro hr ”) r epe at ed eff o r ts t o ha ve hi m r etur n. Ch api n sued both deal er shi ps, al l eging di scr im i nati o nbe c au se of h is ra c e a n d ret alia tio n u n d er T itle V II o fthe Ci vi lRi g ht s Act o f1 96 4. Af te ra j ur y t r i al, the j ury re tu rned a f avo rabl e v er dicto n Chap i n’s r eta l i ati on cl ai m . F or t- Rohr appeal s, ar gui ng tha t i t was en ti tl ed to j ud gm ent as a m att er of l aw because C h ap in faile d to sh ow th atFor t-R oh r a c t u ally or c on st ru c tiv ely disc harg ed Chap i n i n re tal i ati on forhi s co m pla i nt. W e a gr ee that For t- Rohr w as entit led to j ud gm ent a s a m at te ro fl aw b ec au se Cha pi n di d no t pr o duce s uffi ci ent e vi dence to supp or t an actualo r const ructi ve di sc ha r g e. The r efo r e, we r ev er se th e j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourt .
I . B AC KGR OUND B ob R oh rm an ow n s m u ltip le c ar d ea ler sh ip s in In d iana an d I ll inois, i nc lud ing several in the Fort W ayne, Ind i ana a re a. On e of th ese i s M i d-S tat es M oto rs , I nc. ( “M i d-S tat es” ), and another i s F or t- Rohr M oto rs , Inc. ( “Fo rt
- Rohr”)
. Th e tw o deal er shi ps ar e s epara te cor pora 1 ti ons w i th se parat e m anage m ent a nd em plo yee s.N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 3 Ch api n had b een em plo yed atvar i ous Ro hrm an- own ed d e a l e r s h i p s i nh i s ma n y y e a r s a s a s a l e s ma n, wo r k i ng sp ecifi cally for L arr y K r u s e on an d offat various d ealershi ps beg i nning in the ear l y 1 990s
. A t s om e point, Ch api n l eft Ind i ana and spent a few ye ar s e l sewhere, re turni ng to th e F or t W ayne ar ea i n the spri ng o f20 04. A gain, as he ha d done m any t i m es in t h e past, Kruse offer ed hi m a posi ti on in the s p ring of20 04 as a use d car sa l e s ma n a g e ra tMi d

- S t a t e s . Na d e e m B a i g, a P a k i st an i M uslim , bec am e Gener alM anage r ofthe M i d-S tat es deal er shi p i n A pri l20 04, ta ki ng o ver t h is posi ti on fro m K ruse . On A pri l30 , 20 04, Bai g c al l ed Chap i n i nto a m ee tinga nd t er m i na te d Cha p in’ s empl o y m en t. Dur i ng t r i a l, Ba i gt e s t i fi e d tha ta s a n e w m an a g e r, h e ma de the deci si on t o re pla c e Chapin b ecause Chapin f ai l ed to be a vai l abl e, to tr ai n the sal es f or ce, and had f ai l ures i n p ro du cti on. Chapin cl ai m ed he was te rm i nated because he was a w hi te Ch ris ti an and Bai g wis hed to re pla ce the cur re nt em plo yee s with Paki sta ni M usl i m s. InJu n e 2 00 4, R oh rm an op en ed its F o r t
- R oh r d ea ler sh ip unde rthe mana g emento fKr us e, wh o re cr ui te d a nd h ir e d Ch ap in to w ork as a used car sales m an ager. C h ap in w or ke d w ith ou t in c id en t fro m Ju ly 2 00 4 u n til F e b r ua r y 2 0 0 5
. OnF e b r ua r y 1 0 , 2 00 5 , Ch a pin fi l e d a cha rg e ofdi scr i m i nati on with the Eq ualEm plo ym ent Opportuni ty Com m i ssi on ( “EE OC ”), al l eging tha t th e M id -St at es d ea ler sh i p h ad d isc rim in at ed ag ain sth im on the basi s of hi s ra ce. Ch api n al l ege d that Ba ig w as sy st emat i ca l l y r epl ac i ngwhi te Chr i st i an s wi thPa k i st an i M usl i m s. M i d-S tat es’ s m anage m ent inform ed K ruse ab ou t C h ap in ’s E E O C co m p lain t.4 N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 K ruse as ked Chapin t o m eet w i th hi m o n Feb ruar y 2 8, 2005
. A l so prese nt atthi s m eet i ng were Sal es M anage r Sh ane Houshol der a nd H um an Reso urces M anage r Lu k e Lu the r . Ch api n s ur r e pt i t i o us l y b r o ughta t a pe r e c o r de r t o thi s mee t i ng a nd s e c r e t l y r e c o r ded i t. Du ring thi s m eet i ng, wh i ch onl y l ast ed a m i nute, Kruse r ai se d hi s vo i ce a nd was v ery ups et . The r ecorde d c o nver sat i on, i n tr anscr i pt f or m , went as f ol l ows: K R U SE : I ne ed to as k y ou , w h atis yo u r m en ta li ty i n fi l i ng the E EO C cl ai m ag ai nst Bo b Ro hr m an ? CH API N : W ha t do y o u mea n? KRU S E: W ha t do Imean ? CH A PI N : I t i s a ctual l y a gainst Nad eem , i s that

cor re ct? K R U SE : W ho d oes N ad eem w ork for ? CH API N : Ro hr m an . K R U SE : W ho d o you w ork for ? CH API N : Ro hr m an . K R U SE : W h atth e h ell is y ou r m en ta l i t y ? D id

you have a br ai n f ar t o r w hat? C H A PIN : Isup p ose. Idid n’t th ink tha t - K RU SE: Do yo u w ant t o w or k her e? CH A PI N : Yes, Ido. K R U SE : If I w an te d t o w or k h er e on t h e floo r, I

wo u l d n ’ tfi l e s u i ta g a i n s th i m.N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 5 CH A PI N : Ithink tha t Iwas m i sf ai rly t re ate d

dow n ther e. KRUS E: I th a d nothingt o do

— h e b ro u gh t h is

o wn pe o pl e i n. I th a d n o thingt o do w i th any thi ng w i th you. Ifyou w ant t o fi l e a c lai m , yo u need to work som ew he re else, becau se you are n ot p erf o r m i nghe r e. Ic anl ety o u g o f o rno nperf or m ance. CH A PI N : N o, Iwant to w or k her e. KRU S E: The n y ou nee d t o fuck i ngr ev er se the

cl ai m r i ght a w ay, and i t nee ds to be done to day. CH A PI N : Okay. Ihave to go dow n ther e. K RU SE: Go do i t ri ght now . You ar en’ t going to

wo r kh e r e u nt i ly o u geti tr e v e r s e d. Pe r i o d. CH A PI N : Okay. K RU SE: You deci de if y ou ar e work i ng her e o r

not. CH A PI N : A l lr i ght. Iam going to do i t. Iwant to

w or k her e. KRUS E: Go g e ti th a nd l e d. Fol l ow ing thi s co nver sat i on, Chapin di d not withd ra w hi s EEO C com pla i nt, and h e d id notr etur n to work. Krus e te st i fi ed th athe m ade mul ti pl e ca l l s at te m pting to r eac h Cha pi n a fte rthi s m ee ting . A wom anwho6 N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 l i ve d wi thCha pi n a l so te stifi ed th ats he ha d t ak ena m es sa g e fr o m Kr us e wi sh i ngt o s pea kt o Cha pi n, a nd that she had delivere d the m ess age . Chapin deni ed re

cei ving a ny phone ca l l s o r m ess age s. H e s tat ed that he cal l ed Fo rt
- Rohr to se nd hi m hi s F ebr uaryco m m i ssio nch ec k b u t th atFor t-R oh r re fu se d to m ail it u n til he cam e in f ora m eet i ng. On M ar ch 4, 20 05, Chapin m et aga i n w i th Kruse, H oushol der a nd Luther, a nd ag ai n, se cre tl y t aped the m eet i ng. A s com pared to the fi rs t t ape- re cor ding, th i s ta pe- r ec o r di ng was co ns i der ab l y l es s cl ea r an d the tr an sc r i pt i s no t ve rba ti m . A t r an sc r ibe d ve r si on of the re l evantpart s o fthe conve rs ati on s tat es: KRU S E: W ha t i s g o i ngo n?

. . . CH A PI N : You tol d m e, don’ t co m e ba ck unle ss I

re ver sed i t. Th at i s y our exact w or ds. Y ou m ad e it very clear. K RU SE: Idi dn ’ t t el lyo u that. CH A PI N : Yes, yo u did. You sai d, unti lIcan cl ear

that, Idi dn ’ t hav e a j ob. KRUS E:

— Idi dn ’ t fi re yo u, i fthati s what

— CHAPI N: It o o ki tas me b e i ngfi r e d. Y o u s a i d I

didn’thave a j ob. KRU S E: Idi dn’ t fi r e y o u.

. . . KRU S E: Is ug g es t th aty o u g o g etdr es se d a nd

re portbac k t o w or k.N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 7

. . . CH A PI N : Iwas und erthe i m p ressi on that y ou

didn’twant m e up her e. KRU S E: Tha t i s no t th e

— . CH A PI N : That w as th e t ota li m press i on. You

sai d I w as going to get fi red for product i o n. KRU S E: Idi dn’ t sa y a ny th i ngabo utg et ti ng

fi r e d. C H A P IN : Y ou sa id , “I cou ld fire yo u .” K RU SE: I s aid Ico uld fi re yo u. Idi dn ’ t s ay I

was fi r i ngy o u.

. . . K RU SE: So , m y quest i on i s, do y ou w an t t o

w or k her e? C H A PIN : Ido. Ineed a l ittl e tim e off
. K R U SE : T im e off ? CH A PI N : Iam i n th e m id d le of a pai nti ng proj ect, and Iwant to geti t done. Fol l owing thi s conver sat i on, Fo rt
- Rohr sent seve ra l l ett er s t o Ch api n. O ne dated M ar ch 8, 20 05 sta tes that “yo u cl ear l y understo od thatyo u ar e s ti l lem plo yed w i th us and e xpected to be at w or k” and tha t “you w oul d be abl e t o re turn t o w or k.” A notherl ett erdated M ar ch 14, 20 05 sta tes that“[ d]es pit e nu m er ou s a tte m pts to conta ct y ou bym ai las w el las byphone, we have f ai l ed to r ec ei ve a ny r es po ns e fr o m you r eg ar di ngy o ur8 N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 in te n tio n s t o c on tin u e y ou r em p loy m en t w ith u s.” Ch api n al so acknow ledges r ecei vi ng a l ett erdated M ar ch 18, 200 5 fr om Luther i nd i cating tha t he sti l lhad a pos i ti on a t F or t- Rohr. Chapin n eve r f or m al l y r esi gned h is p os itio nor re tu rn ed to w or k. Ch api n fi l ed thi s l aw sui t, al l eging r aci aldi scr i m i natio n and re ta li ati on in vi ol ati on o fTi tl e VI Io fthe Civi lRi ghts A c t o f 19 64 , 4 2 U .S.C . § 20 00 e, ets eq . , and a j ury re turned a ve rdi ct in f av or o fM i d-S tat es on Chapin’ s r eve rs e d isc rim in at ion cl a i m . It als o fou n d for C h ap inon h is r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m, a wa r d i n g h i m $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n c o mpensato ryd am age s a nd $1 , 000, 000 i n pun i ti ve dam age s. A fter th e trial, the d istri ct cou rt de nied Fort-Roh r’s m o ti o n fo rj udg m en t as a matt ero fl aw, a nd F o r t- Ro hr a pp e a l e d.
II. A N A L Y S IS W e review de novo th e d istri ct cou rt’s den ialof a m otion for j ud gm en t as a m atter of l aw u n d er Ru le 50(b)
. Fe d . R. C iv. P . 50(b ); Tate v. E xec u ti v e M gm t. Se rvs . , Inc. , 546 F. 3d 528, 53 1 (7th C ir. 20 08)
. W e co nstr ue the f acts i n f av o ro fthe pa r tywho pr ev ai l ed bef o r e th e j ur y, a nd w e w ill o n l y o v er tu rn a j u ry ve rd ictfor th e p lain tiff if w e co ncl ud e th at no ra ti onalj ury coul d have found fo r th e p lain tiff. Tate, 54 6 F
. 3d at 532. A t trial, Ch ap in pres en ted tw o alternatives t o the j ury as to h ow For t-R oh r re ta liat ed ag ain sth im for filin g h is E E O C c o m pl aint

— th a tF o r t
- R o h re i th e ra c tu a l l y o rc o nstr ucti vel y t er m inated hi s e m plo ym ent. The j ury w asN os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 9 in st ru c te d th atC h ap inco u ld su c c ee d on h is c laim on l y i fh e p r o v e d b y a p r e po nd e r a nc e o fthe e v i dence that For t- Roh r “either dir ectly o r const ructi vel y di scharg ed hi m f orfi l i ng a charg e of d iscr i m i nati on. ” F or tRo hr a r g ue s tha t i t wa s e nt i t l e d t o j ud g men t a s a m att er o fl aw b ec au se Cha pi n d id no t es tabl i shtha t F o r t- Ro hr actual l y o r const ructi vely d ischar ged Chapin in re tal i ati o n fo rmakinghi s EEOC com pl ainto fdi sc r i m i na ti o n. Tit l e VI Ipro hibi ts an em plo yer from ta ki ng an advers e em plo ym ent a cti on a gainst a n em plo yee si m plybec ause he ha s fi l e d a n un f a i r e mpl o y men t c ha r g e. 42 U
. S
. C. § 2 00 0e -3(a ); Bur l i ng ton Nor t he r n & Sant a F eRy. Co. v. White, 54 8 U .S. 53 , 62 ( 2006 )
. The anti re tal i ati on pro vi si on p ro h ibit s em p loy er s fro m ta kin g a c tio n s t h atw ou ld b e l i k e l y t o d e t e rv i c t i m s o fd i s c r i m i n a t i o n fr o m c o mp lain in g to th e E E O C
. St ephe ns v. Er i cks on , 569 F. 3d 779, 78 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. U nd erthe dir ect m etho d ofpro of, to estab li sh a p rim a facie case of retaliati on, th e p la intiff w as m ust s h ow t hat: ( 1) he e ngage d i n a s tatutor i l y pr otect ed acti vi ty; ( 2) he s uffer ed a m ate ri ally a dvers e acti on byhis em plo yer ; and ( 3) a causall i nk be tw een th e t w o. Id
. W hi l e Ch api n proce eds und er th e d i re ct m etho d ofpro of, a m ate rially adver se acti on i s r equi re d inth e in d ire c t m et h od of p ro of a s w ell. Id.
A . Ch apin W as Not A ct uall y Term i nate d The parti es agr ee that Ch api n enga ged in a pr ote cted acti vi ty because he fi l ed a c harg e o fd i scr i m i nati on with the EEO C
. See 42 U. S
. C. § 2 00 0e
- 3( a)
. The pr i m ary i ss ue i n thi s app eal i s whethe ra ny a dve r se e m pl o y m en t10 N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177
a c t i o nw a s t a k e na g a i n s tCha pi n b e c a u s e o fh i s c o mp lain t. “T h e a n tir et alia tio n p ro vis ion p ro te c ts an in d ivi du alnotfro m a l lr eta l i ati on, but fro m r eta l i ati on that produces a n i nj ury orhar m . ” B u r l i n gto n N o rthern , 54 8 U .S. at 6 7. T o d et er m in e if an ac tio n is “m at e ria lly a dv e r s e , ” we a s kwh e the rthe act i o n wo ul d d i s s ua de a r eas onabl e work erfro m m akin g or sup port i ng a c h ar ge of d isc rim in at ion
. Id. a t 68 ; Nagle v . Vill. o f C a lum et Park, 5 5 4 F
. 3 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 9 ( 7 thC i r . 2 0 0 9 )
. In d e t e r mi n i ng th e si gni fi cance ofany gi ven a ct o fr eta l i ati on, the tes t i s o bj e c t i v e b u t “ c o n t e x t ma t t e r s ” a n d we l o o ka t th e “co nstel l ati on o f s urr ounding ci rcum sta nces, expecta
ti ons, and re l ati onship s w hi ch ar e no t fully c aptured by a s i m ple r eci tat i on o f the w or ds used .
. . . ” Bur l i ngt on No rthern , 54 8 U .S. at 6 9; Fis ch er v. Ava nade, Inc. , 51 9 F.3d 393 , 401 (7th C ir. 2008). A s a ninit ial m at te r, C h ap incla im s h e w as ac tu ally fi re d on February 2 8, 20 05, and that thi s fi ring es tabl i shes an adver se acti on. The qui ntess enti alex am ple o f an adver se ac tio n i s a ta ngibl e e m plo ym ent a cti on, such as th e t er m in at ion oft h e e m p loy m en t re lat ion sh ip
. See B u rl in gton Indus. , Inc. v. Eller th , 524 U
. S. 742, 761 (1998 ); Crady v . Libe r ty Nat. Bank & Trus tCo. of Ind. , 99 3 F
. 2d 132, 13 6 (7 th C ir. 19 93 ). C h ap inarg u es t h a t t h e jur y c ou ld have re aso nabl y c oncl ud ed that, bec ause he di d not w i thdraw his EE OC com p l ai nt afterhi s m eet i ng with K ru se , C h ap inw as th en im m ed iat ely an d au to m at ica lly f i r e d
. If C h ap inh ad filed su it on Fe b ru ar y 2 8 a fte r h is m eet i ng with K ruse , and al lwe had to a n aly ze w as h is firs t t ap e-r ec or d ed co n ve rs at ion w ith K r u se , C h ap in coul d p lausibl y a rgue thati t was a questi on o ff actN os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 11

w hetherhe was ac tual l y fi re d . But her e, wh er e s eve ra l exchanges o ccurr ed afterFebruary 2 8, we w oul d n ee d to look at the Febr u ary 28 even ts in a vacu um and i gn ore al lsubse quent act i ons ofthe parties t o concl ud e that th er e was a n a ctua lt er m i na ti o n. T h e s e qu e n c e o fe v e n t s w a s a s f o l l o ws : K r u s e b e c a me aw ar e that Chapin fi l ed an EEO C charg e, and he a ske d Ch api n to m eetwith hi m . Duri ng thi s s hor t, heat ed mee t i ng, Kr use ask e d h i m why h e wo ul d fi l e a n EEO C cl ai m and then s tat ed that i fChapin wanted to w or k o n th e floo r, h e w o u l d n e ed to w ith d ra w th e c laim . C h ap in r es po nde d b y s ay i ngtha t he di d want to wor kthe r e an d he would w i thdraw his cl ai m . C h ap i n l eft workthat d a y, b u td i d n o tw i th d r a w h i s c l a i m. Ch api n cl ai m s that he w as autom ati c al l y t er m i nated a s s o o na s h e l e ftwo r ko n F e b r u a r y 2 8 b e c a u s e th e wi th

draw alo fthe EE OC claim w as a pre condi ti on t o hi m k e e p i n gh i s j o b
. Ho we v e r, th e a c t i o n s o fF o r t
- Ro hr w hen Chap i n did no t r etur n to work, sho w thatan a utom ati c te rm i nati on nev ero ccurr ed. Krus e and Fo rt
Rohr did n ot consi der Chapin to be fi re d and K ruse acti vel y a nd co nti nually e ncoura ge d C hapin t o re turn t o w or k. M ost i m port antl y, Ch api n hi m sel f tes ti fied that hi s und er sta nd i ng fro m the February 28 m eet i ng was that “Ias sum ed K ruse would fi re m e if I d i dn ’ t r eve rs e the c l aim , which Idi d not, ” a nd notthathe was te rm in at ed atth e m ee tin g its elf . F u rt h er m or e, C h ap in re t u r n ed to For t-R oh r on M ar c h 4, 20 05 to p ick u p h is c om m iss ion ch ec k b ec au se F o r t
- R oh r re fu se d to m ail it to hi m witho ut having hi m co m e in f ora m eetin g.12 N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 Du ring thi s m eet i ng, Ch ap i n acknow l edged thathe was sti l lem p loy ed byFo rt
- Rohr and cl ai m ed to want to re turn t o w or k o nce he w as done w i th a pai nti ng pro j ect. Kruse nev erfi re d C hapin, an d so an actualte rm i nation from Fort-Roh r can not be the basis of C ha p in’s re tal i ati on cl ai m . Based o n the re cor d and evi dence pro

du ced at tr i al, no ra ti onalj uror c ou l d have found that K ruse actual l y fi re d C hapin o n Feb ruar y 2 8.
B. N o Const ructi ve D i schar ge I n the a l te r na ti ve , Cha pi n c l ai m ed that he was c o nstr ucti vel y di schar ged fro m hi s e m p l oym ent, and that th is c on st ru c tiv e d isc h ar ge p ro vid es th e b as is of h is re tal i ati on cl ai m . A co nstr ucti ve disc harg e consti tutes an ad v e r s e e m p loy m en t a c tio n . P a . State P o lice v. Su ders , 542 U
. S. 1 29, 14 7 ( 2004 )
. I t occu rs w he n th e plaintiff sh o ws tha t he was f o r ce d t o r es i g n b ec au se hi s wor k i ng c o n d i t i o n s , fr o m th e s t a n d p o i n to fth e r e a s o n ab l e e mp loy ee , ha d be c om e u nb ea ra b le. Id. at 147; Ro by v. CWI, Inc. , 579 F.3d 779 , 785 (7th C ir. 2009); s e eal s o EEO C v. U niv . of C hi. Ho sps. , 276 F.3d 3 2 6 , 3 3 1 (7th C ir. 2002). Ourc i r cui t ha s r ec o g ni ze d t wo differ en t f o r m s o fc o nstru c ti ve disc harg e, but nei therdi spenses w i th the r equi r em en t th atthe wor ke nv i r o nm en t ha d b ec o m e i nto ler ab le. SeePa
. StatePo li ce, 54 2 U.S
. at1 41 ( “U nd er the c on st ructi ve disc harg e doct rine, an e m plo yee ’ s r easo n ab le d ec isio nto res i g n be c au se of u n en d u ra b le w or ki ng co nd i ti ons i s a ssi m i l ate d to a for m al d i schar ge for rem ed ial p u rp os es .” ); Ciga n v . Chippe wa Fal l s Sch. D is t. , 388 F.3d 33 1, 33 3 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); U niv
. o f C hi. Ho sps. , 276 F. 3d at 332.N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 13 I n the fi rs t for m , an em p loy ee r esi gns due t o al l ege d di sc r i m i na to r y ha r as sment . S uchc as es r equi r e a pl ainti fft o s ho w w o r k i ngc o ndi ti ons evenmor e eg r eg i o us th an th atreq u ire d for a h os til e w or k e n vir on m en t c laim b ec au se em p loy ee s a re ge n er ally ex p ec te d to r e m ain em p loy ed w h ile se ek in g r e d re ss , R oby, 57 9 F
. 3d at 785, ther eby al l owing an em plo yerto address a si tuati on bef or e i t causes the em plo yee to q uit
. Boum e hdiv. Pla s t ag Hol di ngs, L LC, 48 9 F
. 3d 781, 78 9- 90 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. Fo r exam ple , w e have f ound co nstr ucti ve disc harg e when th er e is a th re atto a p lain tiff’s p er so n al s af e t y . Se e, e . g. , P o rter v. E rie Fo o ds, Int’l, Inc ., 576 F.3d 629 , 640 (7 th Cir. 2009 ) (clai m f or c ons tru ctive d ischa rge pos sible w he re hara ssm ent inc lu d es re peated use ofnoo se and i m pli ed th re at s o f p h ys ica l viole n c e); Taylo rv. W
. & S. Lif eIns . Co. , 96 6 F
. 2 d 1 1 8 8 , 1 1 9 8
- 9 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( c o ns t r uc t i v e di sc h ar ge w h er e s u p er vis or br an d ish e d a fire ar m an d h eld i t t o the pl ai nti ff’ s hea d). Chapin c an have no succes s und erthi s for m of construct i ve disc harg e, as he ha s no t sugge ste d he has suffer ed any hara ssm ent. One thr eat an d rais ed vo ice s w ou ld n otrise to t h e lev el of a h os tile w or k e n vir on m en t, an d so it als o c an n otbe th e b as is for C h ap in ’s c on st ru c tiv e d isc h ar ge cla im
. Se eTut m an v. WB B M -T V

, Inc./CB S, Inc., 209 F.3d 104 4 , 1050 (7th Cir. 2000 ). Th e s e c o nd f o r m o f c o ns t r uc t i v e di s c ha r g e w e hav e r ec o g ni ze d o cc ur s “[ w]h ena n e m pl o y era ct s in a m an n er s o a s t o h av e c om m u n ica te d to a re as on ab le em plo yee thatshe w i ll be te rm i nated.
. . . ” U niv. of Chi. Ho sps., 2 76 F
. 3d at3 32
. In thi s si tu ation, i fthe pl ainti ffem plo yee r esi gns, the em plo yer ’ s co nd uct m ay14 N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177

am ou n t t o c on st ru c tiv e d isc h ar g e. Id. Thi s f o r m o fc o nst r u c t i v e d i s c h a r g e , h o we v e r, d o e s n o te l i mi n a t e t he n ee d for th e p l a i n t iff to s h ow th ath is w or kin g c on d itio n s h ad be c om e in to ler ab le. Id. ; Cigan , 38 8 F
. 3d at 333. A n d a w or kin g c on d itio n d oe s n otbe c om e in to ler ab le orunbear abl e m er el y b ecause a “pro sp ect ofdi schar ge l urks i n the back gr ound.” Ciga n , 38 8 F
. 3d at 333. I n E E O Cv. U niversi ty of C hicago H ospit als , we rul ed that a c l a i m o fc o ns t r uc t i v e di s c ha r g e c o ul d move f or w ar d to tr i alwh er e an em plo yee , Vi cto ri a Leyv a, ar ri ved atwork to fi nd herbel ongings pack ed an d her offi ce b ei ng used as st or age . 26 7 F
. 3d at 332 . I n that ca se , the pa ck i ngo fb el o ng i ng s ca m e afte ra s upe rvi si ng em p loy ee w as fi re d fo r re fusi ng to fi re Leyva, Leyva re cei ved sudd enl y neg ati ve perf or m ance e val uati o ns , a nd s he was tol d a min o rmis ta k e was “ th e l astst ra w . ” Id. at 329- 30. W e s i m i l ar l y found a co nstr ucti ve disc harg e in another c ase , wh er e i t was undisputed byb o thpa r ti es tha t h ad the e m pl o y ee no t r es i g ne d he w o u ld h av e b ee nte rm in at ed im m ed iat ely
. Kodi s h v
. O akbrookTerr a ceFire P rot. D is t. , 60 4 F
. 3d 490, 50 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)
. I n contr ast, we f ound there was no co nstr uctiv e d isc h ar g e w h er e a n em p loy ee w as as ke d d er isiv ely about her m oti ves f or fi l i ng an EE OC cl ai m , the em plo yer requ i r ed th e empl o y ee t o t r an sfero ffi ce s o rmove , a nd o nl y o ffer ed o ne una tt r ac ti ve t r an sfero pti o n, a m o ng ot h er cla im s. Fisc her, 519 F. 3d at 410. W e a lso o bser ved th a tth e e mp l o y e e ma y h a v e b e e n ab l e t o s u r v i v e s u mm ar y j ud gm ent i fshe staye d in hertr ansfer re d posi ti on l ong enough t o sh ow t h at i t t rul y was a dead-end path to w ar d s t er m in at ion
. Id. at41 1.N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 15 H ere, even cons tru ing allthe ev iden ce in C ha p in’s favor, n o rea son able em p loyee stan d ing in Ch ap in’s sh oe s w ou ld b e l i e v e th ath ad h e n otres ign ed , he w ou ld ha ve b ee n i m m edi at ely fi r ed. Unl i k e i n U ni ve rs i ty of C hica go H ospit als , the r e i s no th i ngt o i ndi ca te tha t a fi r i ng here was an i m m i nent and inevi tabl e e vent. Thi s i s no t a si tu ati o n whe r e th e “h an dwri tingwas on the wal l ” an d the pl ai nti ffqui t “j ust a head o f fa ll o fthe axe. ” Lindale v. Tokhe i m Corp. , 145 F
. 3d 953, 956 (7th Cir. 1998). I ns t e a d, Ch a pin qu i ta ft e rthe axe h a d b e e n pu ta wa y . On Feb r ua r y 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , Ch a pin mayh a v e h a d a mpl e r e aso n to b el i ev e hi s te r m i na ti o n to b e i m m i ne nt

— K ruse thr eat
ened to fi re hi m and very c l ear l y t i ed that thr eatto hi s EEOC co m pl aint . But, Cha pi n h ad no r ea so n t o c o ntin u e t o b elie ve th ataft er h is s u b se q u en t a n d m u ltip le conta cts w i th Fo rt
- Rohr. Fo rt
- Rohr m ade eff or ts to ha ve C h ap in return to w ork, exp lai ne d that Ch ap in’s empl o y m en t was no t te r m i na te d, a nd e xpr es se d a de si re to kee p Ch api n on a s a n e m p l oye e. A t that point, Cha pi n’ s dec i si o n n o t to r etur n t o work w as hi s o wn: h e ha d a p ain tin g pr oje c t t o finis h
. Cf. Le ve ns t e i n v . Sal af s ky, 41 4 F.3d 767, 774 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( sta ti ng tha t a perso n w ho le aves em plo ym ent b ecause o fa dist ast e o r i m pati ence f ori nvest i gat i on o r term i nati on pro cedures volun taril y resigns an d i s not com p ell ed to resi gn ). I n f act, Chapin n ever f or m al l y r esi gned and i nd eed j ust neverr eturned to w or k. I fChapin had r etur ned to w or k, wi th o uth a v i ngwi thd r a wn the EE OC c ha r g e , p e r ha ps K ruse would have fi re d him . O r, hi s s up er vi sor s o r cowor k er s m ay ha ve c o ns ta nt l y ha r as se d hi m t o the po i nt w h er e h is sa fet y w as atrisk
. Se eBoum e hdi, 48 9 F
. 3d at 790.16 N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 K ruse m ay al so have done n ot hi ng. A ny o fthes e pos sibi l i ti es w oul d requi re specul ati on o n ourpart, as wo u l d a fi n d i n gth a tth e wo r k p l a c e w o u l d h a v e b e c o me i ntol er abl e i fChapin had r esum ed hi s pos i ti on, bec ause C h a p i nu ni l a t e r a l l y g a v e u p h i s p o s i t i o n . C h a p i n h i msel fas ks u s t o specul ate wh en he ar gues that “co nstr ucti ve disc harg e woul d h aveoc cu r re d g i ve n the s etup c re at ed by K r u s e u n d er th e p re te x t o f n on p er for m an c e.” Appel l ee ’ s Br
. a t 8 ( emphas i s adde d)
. In Ciga n , w e e mp h as ize d thati t i s no t a co urt’ s pos i ti on t o specul ate o n “w hat i f s, ” s tat in g th at “[ t] he o nl y way t o know how m att er s wil lt u rn out i s t o l et the pr oce ss run i ts cour se. L itig ati on t o deter m i ne wh at woul d h av e h ap p en ed
. . . is a p oo rs ub s t i tut e f o rthe a c tua lr e s ul t s o fr e a lde l iber at i o n wi thin the e mpl o y e r ’ s h i e r a rchy
. ” Ciga n, 38 8 F
. 3d at 333- 34. Thi s i s par ti cularl y t rue i n the const ructi ve discharg e co ntext, wh er e we r eco gni ze that the b urden re m ai ns o n the em plo yee to sho w w h y he w oul d have had to “quitim m ed i ate l y, befor e he f ound the o therj ob; w hy, i n other w or ds, hi s duty t o m i ti gat e dam age s did notr eq uir e hi m to r em ai n. ” Lindale, 14 5 F
. 3d at 956; s e eBoum e hdi, 48 9 F
. 3d at 790. T o fin d t h a t o n e s in gu lar th re at, follow ed by m u ltip le re ass urances thatthe em plo yee has re taine d h i s j ob, was a con st ru c tiv e d isc h ar ge is to low er t h e t h re sh old ofthe “i ntol er ab le” workpl ace so f aras to be unreco gn iza b le. A rea so n ab le p er so n in C h a p in ’s p os itio n w ou ld n o th a v e fe l tth ath e h a d n o c h o i c e b u tt o r e s i g n . No r at i o na lj ur y c o ul d ha ve c onc luded tha t F o r t- Ro hrc o nst ruc tiv ely di sc ha r g ed Cha pi n. Be ca us e th er e was no ad ve rs e a cti on under e i thero fthe theo ri es Ch api n pre-N os. 09
- 1347, 09
- 2177 17

W e b riefly no te tha t w e d o no t for eclo se th e p ossib ility tha t a 2 plain ti ffc oul d ar gue thata s i ngul ar thr ea toft er m i nat i on ha d the i m pa c to fdi s s uading a r e a s on a bl e wor ke r fr om s up por t i ng a di s c ri m i nat i on com pl ai nt, whi c h m i ghtac tas the n e c e s s a r y a d v e r s e a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g h i s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. See, e . g. , Pan toja v. A m . NTNBear i ng M f g. , 495 F. 3d 840, 849 ( 7th Cir
. 2007) ( all ow ing w arnings o f t erm inat ion or other a d v e rs e a ct io n s to p ro ce ed to ju ry ); B ec ke l v. Wal-M ar t A sso cs ., 30 1 F .3d 621 , 62 4 (7th C ir. 20 02 ) (sug g e stin g tha t a thre at to fir e w o u ld b e a n ac tio n a b l e “ a n tic ip a to ry re ta lia tio n .”). B u t see Dun n v . Wa s h i ng t o n Co un ty Ho s p. , 4 2 9 F
. 3d 689, 690 ( 7th Cir
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( s t a t i ng th a to ne un ful fi l l e d thr e a tc ou l d n otbe a c t i o n a b l e a n d fi n di n g th a t“ n a s t y ” r e q u e s t s t o w i t h dr a w a com plaintdid not cause i njury). N eithe r he re oratthe di s t rictc our tha s e i the r par t y e xpl or ed thi s pos s ibi l i t y, an d w e d ec lin e t o d o so as w el l. SeeOcean A tlan t i c Dev. C orp. v. A u ro ra C h risti an S ch s., Inc ., 32 2 F .3d 98 3 , 10 0 5 (7t h C ir . 20 0 3 ).

9- 3- 10 sente d to the j ury, Cha p in’s r eta l i ati on cl ai m under Tit l e VII fail s a nd we re ver se the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni al o fF o r t
- R o h r ’ s mo t i o n f o rj u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro fl a w. 2

I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e R EV ERSE the j ury v e r dicta nd R EMA ND the case to the di str i ct c ourt to e nterj ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw f o rF o r t- R ohrM o to r s, Inc . Be ca us e we r ev er se the j u ry ve rd ict, w e d o n otrea c h th e re m ai n i n g is su es in th e a p p ea l.