Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders
2004 United States Supreme Court case
Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an employer may be liable for a Title VII violation under a constructive discharge theory. However, the plaintiff who quit based on harassment must prove that they quit because conditions for any reasonable person would be unbearable. If they cannot do so, the employer may try to employ an affirmative defense based on earlier cases, Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. Boca Raton.
Background
In March 1998, the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) hired Suders to work as a police communications operator for the McConnellsburg barracks, where her male supervisors subjected her to a continuous barrage of sexual harassment. In June 1998, Suders told the PSP's Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, Virginia Smith-Elliott, that she might need help, but neither woman followed up on the conversation. Two months later, Suders contacted Smith-Elliott again, this time reporting that she was being harassed and was afraid.
The public source identifies “Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders” as 2004 United States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Pennsylvania, State and Police.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders”, the useful work is to connect “2004 United States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 7, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q138024700. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2004 and 1998.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders primary sources, Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders archive and Pennsylvania research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.