Employers are often reluctant to follow up on allegations made against employees nearing retirement age, both because of the fear of age bias claims, and because these employees stand to lose valuable retirement and other benefits if they’re terminated. For these reasons, employers sometimes suggest that the employee take early retirement rather than risk termination.
But sometimes this kind of suggestion can lead to claims that the employee was forced to retire—also known as “constructive discharge.”
How To Survive an Employee Lawsuit: 10 Tips for Success
With lawsuits against employers becoming ever more common—and jury verdicts skyrocketing—your risk of getting sued has increased dramatically even if you’ve done all the right things. Learn how to protect yourself with our free White Paper, How To Survive an Employee Lawsuit: 10 Tips for Success.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—which covers California—recently considered the case of a police officer in Phoenix, Arizona, who was close to retirement age when he was accused of sexual harassment. He opted for early retirement after being informed that he would no longer be eligible for lifetime health benefits if he were terminated.
The court ruled that there was no constructive discharge in this case because the officer chose to resign rather than being coerced into it. The court did, however, outline several scenarios where courts have found that employees were constructively discharged, providing valuable guidance to employers.
We’ll have more on this decision, and the examples provided by the court, in an upcoming issue of California Employer Advisor.