Facts: An HR director believed that her new general manager, who had a "blunt, no-nonsense management style," was a lawsuit waiting to happen. His ignoring of employment discrimination statutes and wage and hour laws drew several warnings from the HR director, who reported the problems to headquarters. For these and other reasons, the GM often "yelled and screamed" at the HR director and at other employees, she claimed. Her supervisor at headquarters believed the GM was "picking on" the HR director.

The GM told the HR director in front of other managers that she was not a "team player," and threatened to transfer her. She began to suffer from headaches, stomach problems, nose bleeds and insomnia. She discussed the possibility of quitting with headquarters.

In a conference call with headquarters regarding an employment law squabble, the GM shouted at the HR director and then screamed at her to come back when she tried to leave the room. He became so agitated, she said, that she feared he might hit her. She backed away and said, "I quit."

After exhausting all administrative remedies, the HR director sued the company for wrongful termination. She claimed she was constructively discharged because of the intolerable and aggravated actions of management.

A jury awarded the HR director $600,000, finding that she had been constructively discharged and "was subjected to adverse employment action because of engaging in protected activities" such as refusing to violate fair employment laws. The company appealed, arguing that there was no substantial evidence of constructive discharge as a matter of law.

Award: The HR director was constructively discharged, a California appeals court ruled (Thompson v. Tracor Flight Systems Inc., Cal. Ct. App., No. F031253, 2/2/01).

Discussion: Under California common law's substantial evidence standard, an employee is considered constructively discharged when the employer's conduct effectively forces an employee to resign, the court said. An employee might say, "I quit," but the employment relationship is actually severed involuntarily by the employer's acts against that employee's will. Constructive discharge takes place if there are intolerable working conditions and the employer has knowledge of the conditions, it said.

The court said the "focus is on whether the resignation was coerced, not whether it was simply one rational option for the employee." The court said the company misunderstood the standard because it attempted "to slice into separate incidents - and to evaluate individually - evidence from which the jury could and clearly did find a 'continuous pattern' of conduct on the part of the appellant and its employees."

Even though individual incidents do not constitute justification for an employee to resign, "the overall campaign of harassment can constitute such a justification," the court said, affirming the jury verdict.