Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)

Citation: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Parent Document: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2013-09-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10693813/rolfs-v-home-depot/ ↗

Full Text

1,168 chars

55
    Marrero was subjected to constant harassment by Cárdenas
    during the year and a half she spent at Goya. To be
    sure, the fact that the plaintiff endured a hostile work
    environment — without more — will not always support a
    finding of constructive discharge. See Landgraf v . USI
    Film Prods., 968 F.2d 4 2 7 , 430 (5th Cir. 1992) (“To
    prove constructive discharge, the plaintiff must
    demonstrate a greater severity or pervasiveness of
    harassment than the minimum required to prove a hostile
    working environment.”). Rather, the jury must find that
    the working conditions were so unpleasant that “staying
    on the job while seeking redress [would have been]
    intolerable.” Keeler v . Putnam Fid. Trust Co., 238 F.3d
    5 , 10 (1st Cir. 2001). In addressing that question,
    however, the jury reasonably can take into account how
    the employer responded to the plaintiff’s complaints, if
    any. An employee’s assessment of whether she can remain
    at work while pursuing remedies for the harassment she
    has endured obviously will be affected by the likelihood
    that the harassment will continue unabated.

Other Sections in This Document (677)

Full Text