By: Ty Hyderally, Esq., and Kenny Delgado

October 25, 2024

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that discusses what is needed in a constructive discharge scenario and what constitutes an adverse action.  The Court analyzed claims that were brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In Russo v. The Bryn Mawr Trust Company, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment decision and emphasized the standards for judging a workplace for discriminatory behavior.

In the above case, Ms. Wandrea Russo, who is African American, filed an administrative charge claiming racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment, due to her race.  She further claimed that an adverse action was a suspension with pay and then the fact that her employer, a bank, took no action to provide her relief due to the treatment she was receiving from a bank customer.

Ms. Russo first filed her claims with the EEOC and the Pennsylvania state agency (the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission).  Subsequently, she received a Right to Sue Notice and filed her lawsuit in District Court.   The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which the District Judge, the Hon. Berle M. Schiller granted.  Plaintiff took the matter up on appeal to the Circuit Judges.  The end result? The Appellate Court affirmed the District Court’s decision to dismiss her case.

So, what went wrong for the Plaintiff?  First the good, the court assumed that when the bank suspended Ms. Russo with pay, that was a materially adverse employment action.  This is required to advance a Title VII claim. So now the bad.  The court analyzed why the bank did what they did and felt it was warranted and not for a discriminatory or retaliatory reason.  What happened in this case was that Ms. Russo taped a key box shut which, she testified at deposition was a serious security breach.  In fact, during her deposition, she agreed that such a breach could properly result in termination.  The Court emphasized the deposition testimony of Ms. Russo and the admissions she made that were very hurtful to her case. The Court found that because of Ms. Russo’s own deposition testimony, the bank was warranted in suspending her.  Thus, the Court found no violation of law with regard to this part of Ms. Russo’s case.

The Court then dealt with Ms. Russo’s complaint about the Bank’s handling of a hostile customer.  Ms. Russo’s complaint was about the length of time it took for the Bank to take action.  She argued that because it took the Bank more than 30 days to act, the Bank was racially motivated and this delay resulted in a constructive discharge.  A constructive discharge occurs where the conditions of work are so intolerable that no reasonable person can survive same.  Constructive discharge cases are challenging.   Here Ms. Russo testified during her deposition that she was not threatened with termination or forced to resign. She admitted that she was not even encouraged to resign and that there was no change to her pay or benefits.   Further, Ms. Russo testified at deposition that she was planning her exit strategy three months before the constructive discharge.  The Court focused on Ms. Russo’s deposition testimony and the difficulty in proving how the bank taking over 3 months to act was a racial act.  This underlines the need that Plaintiff’s are prepared for depositions to answer such questions!!

The case is a very good read if you have a constructive discharge claim or are preparing your client for deposition.  But it is also a good primer on case selection.

Understanding those legal concepts can be hard and as indicated in the case of Russo v. The Bryn Mawr Trust Company are not always as straightforward as they seem. The best course of action, if you feel that your workplace is hostile, may certainly be to consult with employment lawyers who can guide you, before you take action yourself.

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only.  It does not constitute legal advice, and may not reasonably be relied upon as such.  If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice with regard to your particular set of facts.  This blog may constitute attorney advertising.  This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state of jurisdiction.