Constructive Discharge Easier to Prove

The Connecticut Supreme Court handed down a decision that made it easier for plaintiffs to prove constructive discharge under Connecticut law. Karagozian v USV Optical, Inc. More specifically, it clarified that employees need not prove that an employer acted with a specific intent to have them resign.

Prior to Karagozian, the rules governing constructive discharge were established in Brittell v. Dept. of Correction.  In Brittell, the Connecticut Supreme Court articulated the elements of a prima facie case of constructive discharge which were (1) the employer intentionally created the complained of work atmosphere; (2) the work atmosphere was so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign; and (3) the plaintiff in fact resigned. Subsequent courts interpreting the Brittell elements read in a requirement under (2) that the plaintiff also needed to prove the employer intended for the employee to resign when it created the difficult or unpleasant conditions that ultimately caused the resignation.

The Karagozian Court clarified that such a reading is flawed, and there is no requirement for a plaintiff to plead or prove that the employer, through its actions, intended the specific employee to quit. Instead, plaintiff need only show that the employer intentionally created the difficult or unpleasant conditions that would lead to a reasonable person’s resignation. Therefore, the test combines a subjective inquiry to determine if the employer intended to create the working conditions, coupled with an objective inquiry of whether a reasonable person would be forced to resign when faced with working under such conditions.

In the instant case, the Court found the plaintiff not only failed to plead that the employer intended him to quit, which is no longer a required element, but that the plaintiff also failed to plead facts showing the employer created a work atmosphere that was so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in his shoes would have felt compelled to resign. As such, the Court affirmed the lower courts motion to strike plaintiff’s claims. In doing so, it summarized that an employee’s dissatisfaction with his job responsibilities and assignments do not suffice to establish a claim of constructive discharge. By failing to establish that his work conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in plaintiff’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign, the plaintiff’s complaint fails.

While this decision makes it somewhat easier to prove constructive discharge cases, employees must still be able to prove that the unpleasant or difficult conditions intentionally created by an employer must be of a degree that a reasonable person would quit instead of working in such an environment.