Opinion ID: 3190883
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Title VII Constructive Discharge

Text: Medearis contends that, based on his race, CVS constructively discharged him when Lindler and other CVS officials created an unendurable work environment through harassment and the allocation of fewer allowable employee hours to Medearis’s store. “Constructive discharge occurs when an employer 14 Case: 15-11605 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Page: 15 of 16 deliberately makes an employee's working conditions intolerable and thereby forces him to quit his job.” Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). To make a constructive discharge claim under Title VII, an employee must demonstrate that his work environment and employment conditions were so unbearable that a reasonable person in the same position would have felt compelled to resign. Poole v. Country Club of Columbus, Inc., 129 F.3d 551, 553 (11th Cir. 1997). “The standard for proving constructive discharge is higher than the standard for proving a hostile work environment.” Hipp v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1231 (11th Cir. 2001). Hipp guides us in determining what constitutes a hostile work environment. In Hipp, an employee claimed that he was harassed by two regional vice presidents until he felt forced to resign. Id. at 1232. The employee alleged that he was verbally attacked in multiple public incidents and was informed that he should quit if he was unable to do his job. Id. at 1233. He was also told that he was doing a “lousy job” and that he was a terrible district manager. Id. We concluded that the behavior of the regional vice presidents did not rise to the level of a constructive discharge under the ADEA. 4 Id. at 1237. 4 The standard for constructive discharge is the same in both the Title VII and ADEA contexts. See Walton v. Johnson & Johnson Servs., Inc., 347 F.3d 1272, 1282 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Hipp in a Title VII constructive discharge case). 15 Case: 15-11605 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Page: 16 of 16 The district court properly granted summary judgment in this case because, viewing the evidence in Medearis’s favor, Medearis failed as a matter of law to establish that the conduct by Lindler and other CVS officials met the level of severity required to sustain his constructive discharge claim. Similarly to Hipp, where the employee was told he was doing a “lousy job,” Medearis had to suffer Lindler’s laughing at his complaints and was told once that he would be fired within a year. Title VII does not protect employees from stressful workplace environments. “While we might disagree with the behavior of [Lindler and other CVS officials], we cannot find that it rises to the level of constructive discharge.” Id. at 1233. Lindler’s actions failed to rise to the level of severity or pervasiveness that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign. Id. at 1235. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Medearis’s constructive discharge claim.