Issue of the case

The issues of the Pennsylvania State Police v, Suders broke down into civil rights and sex discrimination in the work place. Nancy Suders claimed she was sexually harassed by three of her supervisors at the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) over a five month period. “Suders contacted PSP’s Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, Virginia Smith-Elliott, expecting help, but neither woman followed up on the conversation…Suders contacted Smith-Elliott again, reporting harassment, shortly before she quit; Smith- Elliott told her to file a grievance without offering her any additional assistance.” Suder quit shortly after these complaints and then sued the PSP “…alleging that she had been sexually harassed and constructively discharged, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” In the Business Law book sexual harassment is defined as “Unwelcome sexual attention, whether verbal or physical, that affects an employee’s job condition or creates a hostile working environment.” Suders had did not use the procedures set up by the state police to deal with sexual harassment because of that she could not bring suit unless the police had taken a "tangible employment action" that changed her employment status. A Third Circuit Court of Appeals panel overturned the district judge's decision they stated said that the harassment at work was so bad for Suders that she had no choice but to quit. “While the police had not fired Suders, they had been directly responsible for her resignation and therefore could not use her failure to file a report as a defense.”

Citations

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-95.ZS.html
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2003/penvsud
http://www.whiteandwilliams.com/CM/NewsAlerts/NewsAlerts350.asp