Danielle Sullivan v. St. Joseph's Rehabilitation and Residence, 143 A.3d 1283

Danielle Sullivan was director of nursing at St. Joseph’s (hired Dec 2009) and resigned effective 30 days after submitting notice on May 23, 2012, one day after receiving a written 30-day performance plan addressing alleged performance deficiencies.
Sullivan had repeatedly complained about staffing cuts, unsafe/admissions practices, and admissions without proper paperwork; she alleged those complaints led to criticism, exclusion from meetings, and reassignment of admissions duties.
The performance plan followed meetings in which consultants and new administrators criticized Sullivan and excluded her from decision-making; Sullivan viewed the plan as retaliatory and felt compelled to resign.
Sullivan sued under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), asserting retaliation and a separate constructive-discharge count; the trial court granted summary judgment to St. Joseph’s on the constructive-discharge claim and denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim; a jury later found for the defendant on retaliation.
On appeal Sullivan challenged only the grant of summary judgment dismissing her constructive-discharge claim; the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the summary judgment record in Sullivan’s favor but affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sullivan was constructively discharged such that the WPA’s adverse-action element is satisfied	Sullivan argued the criticism, exclusion from meetings, reassignment of duties, and issuance of the 30‑day performance plan created working conditions so intolerable a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign	St. Joseph’s argued the record showed no objectively unbearable conditions: no pay cut, demotion, transfer, or termination; a corrective performance plan alone is not constructive discharge	Court held Sullivan failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that working conditions were so objectively unbearable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to quit; summary judgment affirmed
Whether the court erred in addressing constructive discharge separately on summary judgment	Sullivan contended the constructive-discharge component should not have been resolved separately from the retaliation claim at summary judgment	St. Joseph’s supported separate resolution, arguing plaintiff failed to prove the additional objective elements of constructive discharge	Court held separate adjudication was proper and no genuine dispute of material fact existed on constructive discharge

Levesque v. Androscoggin Cty., 56 A.3d 1227 (Me. 2012) (constructive discharge is a compound claim tied to unlawful discrimination/retaliation)
Lee-Crespo v. Schering-Plough Del Caribe, Inc., 354 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2003) (objective standard: working conditions must compel a reasonable person to resign)
Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (constructive discharge requires both precipitating conduct and the employee’s decision to leave)
Bard v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 590 A.2d 152 (Me. 1991) (elements of a WPA claim: protected activity, adverse employment action, causal link)
EEOC v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 774 F.3d 127 (1st Cir. 2014) (corrective performance plans ordinarily do not amount to constructive discharge)