CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND EMPLOYER INTENT - ARE THE COURTS SPLIT OVER A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in its recent ruling in Martin v. Cavalier Hotel Corp., eviscerated any meaningful distinction between the majority and minority views on what a plaintiff must demonstrate t o prove employer ''deliberateness,'' a required element of a construct ive discharge claim. A majority of the circuits require only that the plaintiff demonstrate that a reasonable person would have felt compell ed to resign. A minority require, additionally, that the plaintiff dem onstrate the employer ''intended'' that the plaintiff resign. In Marti n, the court held that the plaintiff may establish the requisite emplo yer ''intent'' by demonstrating that the resignation was the ''reasona bly foreseeable consequence'' of the employer's actions. The author co ncludes that adoption of the ''reasonably foreseeable consequence '' s tandard means that, under either the majority or minority view, the re sults will be the same.