Opinion ID: 2975473
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constructive Discharge Theory

Text: A second reason given by the district court for granting Rock-Tenn’s motion for summary judgment on the sexual harassment claims is Deters’ failure to include her constructive discharge claim in her EEOC charge. The district court improperly conflated Deters’ constructive discharge theory with her sexual harassment claims. Deters’ complaint does not contain any independent claim for constructive discharge. Counts I and III are sexual harassment claims, based on Wuchter’s misconduct. They include no allegations of constructive discharge. Constructive discharge is alleged only in connection with Deters’ retaliation claims, counts V and VI, which are based on the harsh treatment she received from Sue Beene, not on Wuchter’s harassment. Dismissal of Deters’ - 11 - No. 06-4356 Deters v. Rock-Tenn Co. sexual harassment claims, which do not embody a constructive discharge theory, because the EEOC sexual harassment charge does not include the constructive discharge theory simply makes no sense. The district court implicitly recognized this in its truncated assessment of the merits of Deters’ sexual harassment claims. The court held that “a reasonable jury could not find that plaintiff’s decision to resign [in November 2003] was a foreseeable consequence of the harassment to which she had been subjected while Mr. Wuchter was employed by the company [ending in January 2003].” Opinion p. 12, JA 468. The district court is right: a reasonable jury could not so find. Indeed, Deters did not even so allege. The fallacy lies in the district court’s conflation of the sexual harassment claims with the constructive discharge theory actually asserted in relation to the retaliation claims. Yet, though Deters is clearly not entitled to a judgment on a hypothetical claim that Wuchter’s harassment resulted in her constructive discharge, this does not dispose of the question whether she is entitled to a judgment on the asserted claims that Wuchter’s harassment resulted in other injuries for which Rock-Tenn is liable. - 12 - No. 06-4356 Deters v. Rock-Tenn Co.