A Single or Isolated Confrontation with an Employee, Even if Unjustified, Does Not Necessarily Lead to Liability for Employers

There are a number of different situations that can arise in the employment relationship where people can lose their composure.  In the heat of the moment, people can yell, act unreasonably, and even embarrass themselves.  This happens to managers and supervisors, as well as employees.  However, even if a manager or supervisor is unjustified in yelling or confronting an employee, that does not necessarily create liability for the employer.  Claims for a hostile work environment or for constructive discharge require more than just single or isolated events.

Take for instance, the recent decision from Hamilton County and the First District Court of Appeals in Thomas v. Cohr, Inc., 197 Ohio App. 3d 145, 2011-Ohio-5916.  In that case, the plaintiff filed a wrongful discharge action against her employer claiming that she was forced to resign as a result of abusive behavior from coworkers and her employer.  Her resignation was alleged to be a constructive discharge.  The plaintiff was working as an engineer for the employer helping maintain and repair hemodialysis equipment.  When the plaintiff felt overwhelmed at work, instead of going to her immediate supervisor for relief, she called her supervisor’s boss to complain about her workload.  When her immediate supervisor found out about the conversation, he confronted the plaintiff and began to shout at her.  After the plaintiff complained about her supervisor’s outbursts, an investigation was conducted and a conference was held with the plaintiff, her immediate supervisor, and the facility’s manager.  Her supervisor apologized for the incident and promised to change his future behavior.  No further actions were taken against the immediate supervisor.  The plaintiff, however, was unhappy with the resolution of the matter and continued to complain about the incident.  However, no further altercations or encounters were reported.  Some two years passed after the confrontation when the plaintiff resigned her position wi

h the employer.  Thereafter, she filed suit for wrongful discharge, discharge in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional stress, and defamation.  After some initial discovery, the employer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted by the Trial Court.  Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal.  On appeal, the First District Court of Appeals affirmed the granting of summary judgment.

With regard to the claim of wrongful discharge, the Court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish that a constructive discharge had taken place.  To prove a claim of constructive discharge, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the former employer’s actions made the working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have felt compelled to resign.  The question is whether the cumulative effect of the actions by the employer would make a reasonable person believe that termination was eminent.  The test is also considered to be an objective one, so an employee’s belief that she was compelled to resign must be judged without considering her individual sensitivities.  In this particular case, the plaintiff alleged that the incident with her supervisor, the alleged deficient investigation, and some subsequent disciplinary actions taken against her constituted sufficient evidence to establish that her working conditions had become intolerable.  The Court, however, rejected these contentions.  The Court specifically noted that the plaintiff did not resign until two years after the alleged encounter with her supervisor; therefore, it was not reasonable to conclude that her working conditions were utterly intolerable as a result of that incident.  Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to dispute that the disciplinary actions taken against her were unwarranted or without merit.  Again, while the initial confrontation with her supervisor was clearly wrong and he acted inappropriately, that single incident was not enough to establish grounds for a constructive discharge and justification for her resignation.