PJC Business 2024

E MPLOYMENT

PJC 107.10

PJC 107.10 Instruction on Constructive Discharge An employee is considered to have been discharged when an employer makes conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign. COMMENT When to use. PJC 107.10 should be used with PJC 107.6 if an employee alleges that the conditions of his employment amounted to a constructive discharge. Pennsyl vania State Police v. Suders , 542 U.S. 129, 141 (2004) (outlining the proper inquiry in a constructive discharge analysis); County of El Paso v. Aguilar , 600 S.W.3d 62, 91 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, no pet.) (discussing constructive discharge in sexual harassment cases). Source of instruction. PJC 107.10 is derived from Suders and its predecessors, including Dillard Department Stores v. Gonzales , 72 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002, pet. denied), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Itz , 21 S.W.3d 456 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied). See also Baylor University v. Coley , 221 S.W.3d 599, 605 (Tex. 2007) (citing PJC 107.10). Constructive discharge. “A constructive discharge qualifies as an adverse per sonnel action under the TCHRA [i.e., a tangible employment action], but requires proof that the employer made the working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign.” Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams , 313 S.W.3d 796, 805 (Tex. 2010) (citing Suders , 542 U.S. at 141; Green v. Industrial Specialty Contractors, Inc. , 1 S.W.3d 126, 134 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.)). In other words, if the employer’s official acts are motivated by discrimination and cre ate the intolerable conditions, then the constructive discharge is a tangible employ ment action for which the employer is strictly liable. See Stelly v. San Antonio Aerospace, L.P. , No-04-11-00478-CV, 2012 WL 1940661, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 30, 2012) (“With regard to the allegedconstructivedischarge, we note that absent an official act underlying the constructive discharge, constructive dis charge does not rise to the level of a tangible employment action that would preclude the Company from asserting the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.”) (citing Sud ers , 542 U.S. at 141, 148–49).

321