Constructive discharge; Logan v Denny’s Inc. (6th Cir); Misrepresentation; Stone v University of MD Med Sys Corp (4th Cir); Coercion; Rhoads v Board of Educ of Mad River Local Sch Dist (6th Cir); Procedural due-process; Galien Twp Sch Dist v Department of Educ (On Remand); Effect of tenure; Exhaustion of remedies; Clayton v International Union, UAW; Technical, Prof'l & Officeworks Assoc of MI v Renner; Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Governmental immunity; Odom v Wayne Cnty

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendants-school district and HR director (Berck) summary disposition of plaintiff-former teacher’s claims related to her alleged constructive discharge. Plaintiff sued defendants claiming she was constructively discharged after inadvertently broadcasting to a student (on an AV classroom feed of her remote-teaching software) a brief conversation with her husband about another student. The trial court ultimately granted summary disposition for defendants. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by dismissing her claim for a procedural due-process violation because defendants wrongfully deprived her of continued tenure, finding that none of her arguments showed “her resignation was involuntary, under either a misrepresentation theory or a coercion theory.” First, she “was given an alternative to resignation, namely, proceeding against possible tenure charges.” Second, there was “nothing to suggest [she] did not accurately understand the ramifications of resigning.” Third, she “was not required to decide whether to resign or proceed under any particular time frame.” Fourth, there was “nothing to suggest [she] could not select the effective date of her resignation. Indeed, the resignation letter indicates that its immediate effectiveness was the result of plaintiff’s own decision.” The court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that she was not required to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing the instant lawsuit. First, there was no basis for concluding that the union failed to represent her, “contrary to its duty of fair representation.” Second, because “the grievance process presumably would afford plaintiff ‘adequate redress,’ exhaustion of remedies cannot be excused on this basis.” Third, “failure to exhaust administrative remedies in this case may have had the impact of delaying resolution of the case, not expediting it.” Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s contention that she established a claim for IIED. “Berck’s conduct in this case did not exceed ‘all possible bounds of decency.’” It would have been a dereliction of duty for her to fail to investigate the recorded conversation. In addition, she “contacted a union representative to represent plaintiff during the initial meeting about the matter.” And she did not mislead plaintiff or pressure her “to resign without an opportunity for reflection.” While the investigation “perhaps might have been handled somewhat differently in minor respects, Berck did not act so outrageously so as to constitute the tort of” IIED. Affirmed.