Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Constructive dismissal

Constructive dismissal
Graziano v NYS Division of State Police, USDC, SDNY, 198 F. Supp. 2d 570, Affirmed 275 F. 2d 28

One of the elements in the Graziano case was Graziano's representation that although he had resigned from his position, his separation, in fact, constituted a constructive dismis­sal.

John R. Graziano, a Caucasian male sued the New York Division of State Police [DSP] alleging violations of Title VII. Graziano claimed that he was the victim of unlawful discrimination and harassment because of his gender and that this resulted in his construc­tive discharge.

Graziano's complaint: female co-workers had subjected him to ongoing harassment and discrimination following a sexual harassment complaint that was filed against him but never proceeded to trial.

Finding that "no rational factfinder could determine that [Graziano] suffered adverse treatment on the basis of gender since no nexus could be established that attitudes direct­ed towards plaintiff, accused of sexual harassment, relate to animus directed at gender," Justice Connor dismissed his complaint.

According to the decision, in October 1992, a female co-worker, Patricia Kantha, filed a sexual harassment complaint against Graziano. DSP investigated and ultimately found that Kantha's allegations could not be substantiated and that it would take no further action concerning the matter.

Although Kantha pursued her sexual harassment claim with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the Division found "probable cause" that Graziano had committed sexual harassment against Kantha, the matter never proceeded to trial.

Addressing the issue of constructive dismissal, the court, citing Dean v Westchester County District Attorney's Office, 119 F. Supp. 2d 424, said that a constructive discharge claim is established by showing the employer deliberately creat­ed intolerable working conditions in an effort to force the employee to resign.

In determining whether there has been a constructive discharge, "the trier of fact must be satisfied that the . . . working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would have felt compelled to resign." In contrast, mere dissatisfaction with work assignments, unfair criticism, or working condi­tions that can be categorized as unpleasant does not constitute a constructive discharge.

According to the court, Graziano's constructive discharge claim fails for the same reasons that his hostile work environment claim failed. Other than alleging that DSP sided with his female co-workers, and failed to adequately address his complaints concerning their harassing conduct, Graziano did not assert any independent basis for imputing gender discrimination against the DSP.

Thus, said the court, because Graziano failed to present evidence to support his claim that his co-workers' conduct was gender-related, any neglect by DSP in remedying the situation is not actionable under Title VII and thus his election to resign could not be deemed a constructive dismissal.

Federal District Court Justice Connor also commented that while Graziano "may (or may not) have been the unfortunate target of a conspiracy of his fellow employees who didn't like him and who tried to and did make his work experience extremely unpleasant ... however malicious and contemptible such conduct might be, if it was not gender-motivated, it would not give rise to an action against their employer under Title VII, without which there is no basis for federal jurisdiction."Accordingly, Justice Connor granted DSP's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Graziano's petition with prejudice.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 09, 2008 (boomark / email).