constructive discharge test (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

constructive discharge test in New York

7 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2026 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Short v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.green
nyappdiv · 2010 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019The constructive discharge claim was correctly dismissed, as plaintiff failed to submit evidence that defendant "deliberately created working conditions so intolerable, difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign" ( Short v Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. , 79 AD3d 503, 504 [1st Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

11
Scott v. Harris Interactive, Inc.green
ca2 · 2013 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016Where the claim of constructive discharge is founded upon loss of pay, courts look to the compensation paid to comparable employees, the percentage of the reduction, and the reasonable expectations of the parties ( Scott v Harris Interactive, Inc. , 512 Fed Appx 25, 28 [2d Cir 2013]).

11
Jocelyn Whidbee, Shirlene Tranquille v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., Ed and John Garzarelli, Ownersgreen
ca2 · 2000 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006Under the constructive discharge test, the actions of the employer in creating the intolerable workplace condition must be deliberate and intentional (see Whidbee v Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F3d 62, 73 [2d Cir 2000]), and the atmosphere in the workplace must be so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to leave (id.; but see e.g.

2006Under the constructive discharge test, the actions of the employer in creating the intolerable workplace condition must be deliberate and intentional (see Whidbee v Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F3d 62, 73 [2d Cir 2000]), and the atmosphere in the workplace must be so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to leave (id.; but see e.g.

11
Lisa Petrosino v. Bell Atlanticgreen
ca2 · 2004 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006Petrosino v Bell Atl., 385 F3d 210, 231 [2d Cir 2004] [finding no constructive discharge where an employee’s promotion opportunities were reduced, but the employee retained her job title, pay, and seniority]; Lumpkin v H.E.L.P.

11
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen
scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006Sure-Tan, Inc. v NLRB, 467 US 883, 894 [1984] [recognizing application of the constructive discharge test in the labor relations arena]; Lojek v Thomas, 716 F2d 675, 681 [9th Cir 1983] [applying the constructive discharge standard in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act case involving the forfeiture of pension benefits]).

2006Sure-Tan, Inc. v NLRB, 467 US 883, 894 [1984] [recognizing application of the constructive discharge test in the labor relations arena]; Lojek v Thomas, 716 F2d 675, 681 [9th Cir 1983] [applying the constructive discharge standard in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act case involving the forfeiture of pension benefits]).

11
Fischer v. KPMG Peat Marwickgreen
nyappdiv · 1994 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
1 sentence

1994It is "the facts, not pleaded conclusions of law, [that] govern the sufficiency of a complaint.” (Fischer v KPMG Peat Marwick, supra, at 224 [finding that the pleading of instances of significant reduction of plaintiffs standing in the partnership was a sufficient pleading of constructive discharge].) Under Fischer , the allegations in the complaint that Granser was terminated as general manager is a sufficient pleading of constructive discharge.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Morris v. Schroder Capital Management International green
ny · 2006
2 sentences

2026"Under the constructive discharge test, the actions of the employer in creating the intolerable workplace condition must be deliberate and intentional" ( id. at 621 ).

2016"Under the constructive discharge test, the actions of the employer in creating the intolerable workplace condition must be deliberate and intentional, and the atmosphere in the workplace must be so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to leave" ( id. [internal citations omitted]).

32016–2026
Reichman v. City of New York green
nyappdiv · 2020
1 sentence

2026Here, the defendants submitted evidence demonstrating, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action within the meaning of the NYSHRL and that, in any event, the denial of the plaintiff's accommodation request was motivated by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason and that there was no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' explanation was pretextual ( see Reichman v City of New York , 179 AD3d 1115, 1117 ).

12026–2026
Imperial Diner, Inc. v. State Human Rights Appeal Board green
ny · 1980
1 sentence

1985In the endeavor to justify the findings of the administrative law judge, State Division invokes the doctrine of constructive discharge (Matter of Imperial Diner v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 52 NY2d 72 ).

11985–1985

Where else courts name it

TX 22 (1991–2025) CA 22 (1994–2025) NJ 19 (2001–2025) OH 18 (2000–2025) WA 14 (1985–2023) PA 9 (2001–2023) WI 9 (1993–2023) CT 8 (1998–2025) NY 7 (1985–2026) TN 7 (1996–2025) IN 6 (1983–2009) MA 5 (1996–2006) MN 5 (1991–2024) IA 5 (1997–2022) ME 4 (2001–2025) WV 4 (1992–2010) NH 4 (2012–2019) DE 4 (2015–2026) ID 3 (2009–2013) OR 3 (1995–2018) AK 3 (2000–2025) VA 3 (1998–2008) FL 2 (2001–2004) LA 2 (2003–2006) VI 2 (2015–2015) DC 2 (1986–2014) MT 2 (1991–2023) AZ 2 (2006–2018) WY 2 (1996–1996) MO 2 (2009–2024) MI 2 (1993–1998)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check