Supreme Court to hear workplace harassment lawsuit

McCONNELLSBURG, Pa. -- Nancy Drew Suders spent just five months as a state police dispatcher before quitting over what she said was a continual stream of lewd and offensive comments by her supervisors.

Now her lawsuit against the state police is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments Wednesday on whether she can sue even though she didn't take advantage of a state police system for handling sexual harassment complaints.

At issue in the case is whether quitting under duress is the legal equivalent of being fired.

Suders, now 60, is a former deputy sheriff who went to work in March 1998 at the state police barracks outside McConnellsburg.

In her federal civil rights suit, she said her supervisors talked about bestiality, a spouse's breasts, genital piercing and whether fathers should teach daughters oral sex techniques. One supervisor repeatedly acted out a sexually provocative wrestling stunt, according to the suit.

"I mean, I had no peace," said Suders, who compared the working environment to the movie "Animal House." "They wouldn't let me do my job."

John G. Knorr III, the deputy state attorney general who represents the troopers, said "a lot of the stuff she says happened, never happened at all, and a lot of other stuff happened in a way that's very different than the way she's telling it."

But the Pennsylvania State Police do not have a stellar record of handling sexual misconduct allegations. In September, a statewide review found 68 merited complaints were filed over a six-year period ending in 2001. The Office of Inspector General concluded that discipline for such offenses was lax and inconsistent and cited the department for being too tolerant of sexual misconduct.

"I'm doing this for all the women who came before me, who didn't speak up," Suders said. "And for the women who are in that position with the state police today."

Suders said she would have quit the job even sooner but didn't want to give up the $13-an-hour pay. She and her husband of 44 years relied on her salary to make mortgage payments.

She finally quit when she found herself under investigation for allegedly stealing her own performance exam -- an exam that she believes was scuttled instead of being processed in what she regards as another example of mistreatment.

A federal judge threw out her lawsuit in August 2001, ruling Suders was not entitled to the same legal protections as sexual-harassment victims who are fired.

But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia reinstated the case in April 2003. The court found that the events leading up to her resignation were evidence her bosses were trying to dismiss her, making her departure a matter of "constructive discharge."

"What Nancy is testing here is whether a person who is forced off the job is denied the chance to go to court because she didn't take advantage of the employer's anti-discrimination plan," said her attorney, Don Bailey of Harrisburg.

In a friend-of-the-court filing, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sided with the state police, predicting a ruling against the department could create a "perverse dynamic" where "employees, more interested in boosting the value of their claim than in fixing the underlying problem, would have an incentive to resign."

The Washington-based Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a brief supporting Suders' argument that quitting under such alleged circumstances was tantamount to a firing.

"I think that employers should be concerned if somebody quits without explanation," said Susan Grover, a professor at William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Va., who wrote the Lawyers' Committee brief.

Exit interviews may be "burdensome," she said, but employers "need to do it to make sure that supervisors are not taking inappropriate action against subordinate employees."

------

On the Net:

Case docket: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-95.htm