Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an employee did not have a constructive discharge claim where the employer made efforts to get employee to return, explained that the employee’s job was not terminated, and expressed a desire to keep plaintiff as an employee
• holding that an employee did not have a constructive discharge claim where the employer made efforts to get employee to return, explained that the employee’s job was not terminated, and expressed a desire to keep plaintiff as an employee
• holding that an employee did not have a constructive discharge claim where the employer made efforts to get employee to return, explained that the employee’s job was not terminated, and expressed a desire to keep plaintiff as an employee
• noting that “a working condition does not become intolerable or unbearable merely because a ‘prospect of discharge lurks in the background’”
• stating that work environment must be unendurable to support a constructive discharge claim
• finding that reassurances of job security vitiated reasonable fear of imminent termination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).