SCOTUS Aligns Application of Statute of Limitations in Constructive Discharge and Actual Discharge Cases
1 min read
May 24, 2016
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Green v. Brennan that the statute of limitations for a constructive discharge begins to run on the date of resignation, not the date of the employer’s last discriminatory act, resolving a circuit split. As a result, in determining the deadline for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, constructive discharge cases will be treated the same way as actual discharge cases.
Before delving into the court’s reasoning, let’s review what a constructive discharge is. A constructive discharge occurs when an employee quits in response to discriminatory conduct making the employee’s working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign. In such circumstances, Title VII treats the resignation as an actual discharge.
Now back to the opinion. The majority offered three persuasive reasons for holding the employee’s resignation triggers the limitations clock. First, the standard rule is that a claim accrues when a plaintiff has a “complete and present cause of action.” Like with an actual discharge, the claim becomes a complete and present cause of action upon constructive discharge. Second, nothing in Title VII indicates an exception to the standard rule. And third, it would be impractical to require an employee to file a charge after an employer’s discriminatory conduct, then amend the charge following constructive discharge.
What this ruling means for employers:
Employers can no longer assert a statute of limitations defense based on the last date of discriminatory conduct, which is typically earlier than an employee’s resignation. Although the filing period is now longer, employees will still need to prove a constructive discharge. The longer an employee waits to resign following a discriminatory act, the weaker the inference of a constructive discharge. If there is an upside, because employees will no longer need to file a pre-resignation charge of discrimination to avoid being time-barred, the number of multiple or amended charges should decrease, eliminating the costs associated with responding to and litigating multiple claims.
Featured Insights

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
115 Hinshaw Lawyers Recognized in 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch®

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
Hinshaw’s Landmark Tower Client Project Receives 2026 Top Projects Award

Press Release
Aug 19, 2026
Fernando Rivera-Maissonet Elected as HNBA Region II Governor and Board of Governors Member

Employment Law Observer
Aug 17, 2026
Massachusetts’ First Paid Family Medical Leave Act Verdict Yields $4.75 Million Award

Press Release
Aug 13, 2026
Lauren Campisi Recognized as a 2026 BTI Client Service All-Star by BTI Consulting Group

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Aug 13, 2026
How Will Banks Be Impacted by the Proposed Regulation O Amendments?

Press Release
Aug 12, 2026
William Cook Honored With the Distinguished Service Award by the Chicago Bar Association

Webinar
Aug 12, 2026
John Ryan Presents on "Understanding what is Covered Under the TCPA Today"

In The News
Aug 12, 2026
Scott Seaman Analyzes California’s New Pleading Standards for Excess Insurance Policy Claims



