In this age of easily hurt feelings and heightened sensitivity to just about everything, it's nice to see a common sense decision in an employment case. The Tenth Circuit just ruled - brace yourself - that a supervisor who "set goals and deadlines for an ongoing project, requested that [an employee] 1) keep track of her daily activities in fifteen-minute intervals for seven days, 2) work in her cubicle so [the supervisor] could more closely supervise her, and 3) inform [the supervisor] of dates she would be out of the office" did not constructively discharge the employee she was managing. Turnwall v. Trust Co. of America, No. 04-1303 (10th Cir. 2005).
Apparently, shortly after the meeting in which Ms. Turnwall's supervisor set out the expectations described above, she "began to experience fatigue and memory loss" due to a medical condition, but never requested an extension or discussed the issue with her supervisor. She just kept missing deadlines, and then claims she found it offensive when she was "criticized" for "dropping the ball." She took intermittent leave under the FMLA during this time, went on a two-week vacation, then came back to work long enough to resign. Then she sued for constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Thankfully, the Tenth Circuit held that the working conditions weren't objectively intolerable, and that there was no outrageous conduct, so they got it right. But what does this lawsuit say about the average supervisor's ability to manage an employee who admittedly had problems prioritizing her work? Goal setting and regular monitoring of progress are textbook management techniques, and were perfectly appropriate under these circumstances. Nevertheless, the employer here had to defend a federal lawsuit, and a subsequent appeal, at no small cost, essentially because somebody couldn't handle criticism from a supervisor.
We are blessed with excellent Federal Judges here in the Eastern District of Virginia. Ten years ago, one of them, the Honorable James Spencer, wrote perhaps the best description ever penned regarding the tendency in today's workplace for people to jump on the victim bandwagon:
"Personality conflicts are a fact of life, occurring in the work-place with the frequency of overly-demanding supervisors and crushed employee expectations. And yes, discrimination is also alive and well in America today. But one will not unearth invidious distinctions lurking beneath every act of discipline or every denial of advancement. Any attempt to argue otherwise trivializes the laws enacted to eradicate the bigotry that still blocks the path to individual achievement and inhibits our collective advancement.
It also fosters a culture of victims. This Court does not have the power to prevent the rain from falling into anyone's life, and is not about to intercede in every work-place squabble. Where, as here, the law offers no remedy, the responsibility for recovering from the occasional affronts of office life falls at the feet of the complainant. Thus, a person who clings steadfastly to the belief that she has been unjustly wronged, when all the evidence suggests otherwise, risks more than a judicial defeat. She also imperils her own ability to rise above the normal setbacks of life and renders herself ill-prepared to face the next inevitable pitfall. And this self-inflicted wound is far more damaging.
To those souls who still labor under the heavy hand of illegal workplace discrimination, the doors of this Court will remain ever open. The pretenders, though, must learn to wrest control of their own lives from deleterious circumstances without seeking recourse from the courts."
Keegan v. Dalton, 899 F. Supp. 1503 (E.D. Va. 1995).
Couldn't have said it better myself.