Court Opinion

ID: 9491784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:23:54.605234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:56.782136
License: Public Domain

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The Court today remands for trial plaintiffs hostile-work-environment claim based on sexual harassment. I join this portion of the Court’s opinion.
I also agree that the evidence on the age claim was insufficient to justify submission to a jury.
With respect to the constructive-discharge claim based on sex discrimination, however, I respectfully dissent. When all of the evidence in this case is considered together, including the incidents listed on pages 1156 and 1157, ante, and the grossly offensive conduct attributed to Mr. Chase, I believe that a jury could rationally find that Ms. Breeding was subjected to working conditions that no reasonable, self-respecting woman should be expected to tolerate. It should be added, of course, that the testimony about what Mr. Chase is supposed to have done is only an accusation at this stage. It may be that the trier of fact, after hearing both sides, would not believe the accusation. But that issue should go to the jury, in my view, on the constructive-discharge theory, as well as the hostile-work-environment theory.