For someone who has been through this recently, I prefer what Justice Sonia Sotomayor had to say on this. Believe it or not, even in states and employers with sexual orientation employment protections, employers still find away around these laws by forcing a person to quit due to hostile work environment. All the anti gay management, company or government agency has to do is be extremely mean, which was my case, that has been difficult to move on from, and of course, my sexual orientation was behind it as well as extreme politics (I cant explain why right now)

'Constructive Discharge' (A Forced Quit) isn't much talked about within our LGBT community and its leaders. We press for equality in the workplace but the employee has little to no chance when it comes to a, created, hostile work environment by the "anti" gay people in charge of your employment. This is why I am now promoting, in the interview process, that it be asked by the potential LGBT employee, what the religious affiliation is of the company, government agency and or management. Since these particular people in the workplace are the most likely to create a hostile work environment due to their personal bias and beliefs against our community, especially those in positions of power or authority.

I would much rather work with a bunch of atheists than any so called 'christian' who secretly wishes me harm, will workplace back stab at any time that benefits them and make sure I would never 'climb the ladder' of success in any form before they do. Sounds childish, yes, but not on my part. I just want to go to work, do a good job, be recognized for that work and life balance, and go home. Religious people in the secular workplace make it very difficult for our community especially ones with authority icon_evil.gif

Will the Supreme Court make it harder for workers who are forced to quit because of a discriminatory work environment?

For a brief moment on Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to acknowledge workers who are forced to quit due to a discriminatory work environment.

The Supreme Court was hearing arguments in an employment case that will define the cutoff for when federal workers may sue under federal civil rights law for "constructive discharge" -- or a workplace so unbearable that they have no option but to leave.

Near the end of a hearing, Roberts appeared to empathize with employees in that predicament.

"People are in jobs and they're, you know, suffering this particular type of adverse work environment or discrimination," he said. "But quitting your job is a very big deal. I think you have to plan out when that's going to be, and just because you can't take it anymore doesn't mean that you could quit work right away."

Roberts may as well have been playing devil's advocate. But his comment underscores the realities of workplace discrimination and the tough decisions workers face when considering litigation over claims their employers constructively discharged them.

At issue in Green v. Brennan, which the Supreme Court heard Monday, is when the clock begins ticking for federal workers making that precise allegation. Under federal regulations, an employee has 45 days from the moment a discriminatory act occurred to begin the complaint process against their employer.

"Isn't a constructive discharge the moment that the environment has gotten so hostile that you feel overwhelmed and have to leave?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, in an apparent nod to workers. "Isn't that the discriminatory act as well?"

Green v. Brennan