In Burlington Industries V

In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders the Supreme Court noted that in a case where discrimination in the workplace is claimed, and the employee quits and claims constructive discharge for hostile environment:

A) if it was not quid pro quo harassment then a higher standard of proof for hostile work environment must be met
B) if a hostile work environment is shown, a rule of strict liability is applied
C) a key defense will be if the employer had a proper anti-harassment procedure in place that the plaintiff failed use before quitting
D) it does not matter whether it was hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment, the firm is likely to be vicariously liable unless the employee had a poor work record
E) none of the other choices