Opinion ID: 755554
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Evidence as to Constructive Discharge

Text: 40 The discharge element of an ADEA claim may be either an actual termination of the plaintiff's employment by the employer or a constructive discharge. See, e.g., Stetson v. NYNEX Service Co., 995 F.2d 355, 360 (2d Cir.1993); Pena v. Brattleboro Retreat, 702 F.2d 322, 325 (2d Cir.1983). A plaintiff may prove a constructive discharge by establishing that his employer, rather than acting directly, deliberately ma[de his] working conditions so intolerable that [he was] forced into an involuntary resignation, i.e., so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would have felt compelled to resign. Id. at 325 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Stetson v. NYNEX Service Co., 995 F.2d at 360-61. 41 In the present case, Kirsch was earning a salary of $60,000 in May 1991 and was entitled to a 2% override on sales to his customers in excess of $2 million. At the end of May, Fleet Street informed Kirsch that it was cutting his salary to less than 45% of what he had been earning, i.e., from $60,000 to $26,000. Further, the company informed Kirsch that it was taking the Stern's account from him; since Stern's had accounted for 40-45% of Kirsch's sales, this essentially ended Kirsch's prospects for additional earnings through his override. The jury was free to infer that the reduction of compensation, from $60,000 plus override, to $26,000 without override, constituted a condition so difficult that a reasonable person in Kirsch's shoes would have felt compelled to resign. 42 In addition, there was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to infer that defendants' creation of that intolerable condition was deliberate. Although defendants point to testimony by Manny Haber that he and the company never intended to force Kirsch to leave, that argument goes to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. The jury was entitled to reject Manny's self-serving testimony, as it apparently did. The evidence to support a finding that defendants intended to force Kirsch to leave Fleet Street included not only the severity of the reduction in compensation itself and Kirsch's (uncontroverted) testimony that Alan Haber nodded in response to Kirsch's statement that the company was trying to force him to leave. It also included Kedrus's testimony as to Manny Haber's prediction, made weeks before Kirsch was informed of the intolerable reduction in his pay, that Kirsch would soon no longer be with the company. 43 The district court properly ruled that the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational juror to infer that Kirsch was the victim of a constructive discharge. 44