KEMP v. ALMO CORPORATION, 2:24-cv-02444

Maurice Kemp was hired by Almo Corporation as a forklift operator in February 2017.
Kemp alleges that his supervisor, Jerry Ross, engaged in multiple instances of sexual harassment, including inappropriate touching and comments, between May and October 2023.
Kemp reported the conduct to Human Resources in November 2023; HR conducted an investigation, suspended Kemp for three days, and ultimately took no action against Ross.
Kemp asserts he became fearful for his safety at work and resigned one day after being informed that no disciplinary action would be taken against Ross.
Kemp sued Almo for harassment and discrimination (not at issue here), retaliation, and constructive discharge under Title VII. Almo moved to dismiss the retaliation and constructive discharge claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retaliation	Kemp was suspended for reporting harassment and HR failed to discipline Ross.	No adverse employment action alleged; suspension details not sufficient.	Dismissed, with leave to amend; facts insufficient for adverse action.
Constructive Discharge	Working conditions were intolerable after unresolved harassment and suspension.	Conditions not extreme enough to justify resignation.	Denied; facts plausibly allege constructive discharge.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (articulates plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requires factual allegations beyond speculation for relief)
Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) (constructive discharge doctrine defined)
Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074 (3d Cir. 1996) (constructive discharge and continuous discrimination)
Marra v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 497 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2007) (elements for a prima facie case of retaliation)