In the case of Pennsylvania State Police v. Nancy Drew Suders, 2003, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a constructive discharge (a resignation due to unbearable working conditions) could be considered an actionable claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Suders alleged that she had been subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisors at the Pennsylvania State Police and resigned as a result. The court ruled in favor of Suders, stating that if an employee resigns due to intolerable and discriminatory workplace conditions instigated or unaddressed by their employer, it can indeed constitute a "tangible employment action" under Title VII. However, they also noted that employers may defend themselves against such claims if they can prove they had implemented measures for preventing or correcting such behavior and that employees failed to utilize these resources.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennsylvania State Police v. Nancy Drew Suders, Justice Thomas disagreed with the majority's decision to allow a constructive discharge claim under Title VII in cases where an employer has not taken tangible employment action against an employee. He argued that this expanded interpretation of Title VII was inconsistent with its text and precedent. According to him, allowing such claims would undermine the incentive structure established by previous decisions which encouraged employers to prevent and promptly correct discriminatory behavior within their organizations. He also expressed concern about potential difficulties in determining when working conditions become so intolerable as to justify a constructive discharge claim, suggesting it could lead to arbitrary results based on subjective judgments rather than objective facts.