Plaintiff Suders, a police communications operator, complained orally to a police EEO officer that her supervisors were subjecting her to sexual harassment. Shortly thereafter, Suders quit after being arrested for stealing her own computer-skills exam papers upon concluding ?that her? supervisors? falsely reported? she? had failed and when, in fact, her exams had never been graded. Reversing summary judgment for the employer because genuine issues of material fact exist, the Court also held that ?the ?employer? had ?the ?right? to ?assert ?the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense to liability because a constructive discharge is essentially a ?worse case? hostile work ?environment ?claim ??ratcheted? up ?to ?the? breaking point? ?to? which ?the? defense ?applies; ?it ?is ?not ?a? case involving an adverse tangible employment action for which the employer is strictly liable and to which the affirmative defense does not apply.? ?To establish the defense, the employer must show it exercised reasonable care to prevent and ?remedy ?harassment ?and ?that? the ?employee unreasonably failed to avoid harm such as taking advantage of the employer?s preventive or corrective policies. Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, No. 03-95 (06/14/04; Ginsburg for all justices except Thomas dissenting).