2
Case Study: Employee Retention and Separation
Retention and separation are an important factor for any business. The same is true for
the field of public administration. While some companies may be able to focus more on other
business goals, the public sector notoriously deals with being understaffed and struggling to
retain the workers they have. Reasons for issues with retention and separation are complex and
for a multitude of reasons, the burden of the outcome rests heavily on public sector human
resource leaders (Sifuna-Evelia, 2017, p. 53). Situations involving separation can put the entire
organization at risk if not handled properly by human resources.
Public Sector Separation
Retention and separation being such an important aspect to monitor often does not
receive the focus and allocation it deserves in businesses and organizations (Xuecheng et al.,
2022). Instead, most of the burden falls on the human resource teams to monitor and manage the
risk involved during retention and separation processes. This falls on top of the many other job
responsibilities of the human resource team. Furthermore, within the public sector, there are
many fields that require human resource teams to wear many hats and help with many different
processes like retention and separation processes and managing them in ways that mitigate risk
for the employer.
Introduction to Case Study
The case of Nancy Drew Suders is a well-known lawsuit about a woman who sued the
Pennsylvania State police department for sexual harassment she was experiencing from her
superiors. The case would go on to go to go down in history for the unlikely appeal to the
original motion after being reviewed by the supreme court. Although Nancy quit because she
3
was being sexually harassed, the case was based upon her separation and the reasons for it being
out of her control. The case is one that went on to gain national attention and was known by
many in the U.S. Reasons for this notoriety included the fact that the employer was found at fault
and liable for Nancy’s separation from the department even though they did not actually fire
Nancy, nor did they tell her to resign.
Facts
Nancy Drew Suders was a 911 dispatcher for the Pennsylvania State Police from March
of 1998 to August of 1998 (Bell, 2019). She reported that she was being sexually harassed by
supervisors during her entire time at the job. Nancy’s supervisors would make sexual statements
about how women should be taught how to please men with oral sex, and even grab their genitals
in front of Nancy among other harassing behaviors. Before she quit her job there due to this
treatment, she contacted the state police equal opportunity officer about the harassment (Bell,
2019). However, she was met with indifference from the female officer and while Nancy was
given the contact if anything was needed in the future, the officer did not follow up with her. The
second time she called the equal employment opportunity officer, Nancy reported the harassment
and that she was afraid (Bell, 2019). She was told to file a complaint but not told where or how
to get the needed form to do so. Nancy mentioned that the woman was insensitive and unhelpful
which led her to not file a report after all (Bell, 2019).
Two days after her second contact with the equal opportunity officer, Nancy found her
computer skills exam results from several attempts in the woman’s locker room (Bell, 2019). She
had been told that each attempt had been a failure, but she saw that the real results were never
forwarded to appropriate place for grading. When supervisors realized that Nancy had discovered
the tests results and removed them from the place they were stashed, they accused her of stealing
4
and she was treated like a criminal. The police station handcuffed her, interrogated her, and
photographed her for the action. It was during the interrogation that Nancy stated that she wanted
to resign from her job (Bell, 2019). Once she quit, no charges were brought against her for the
incident.
After the separation, in 2000, Nancy filed a federal lawsuit in district court against the
police department stating that she was forced to quit due to how badly the she was being
harassed by supervisors on the job (Pennsylvania State Police V. Suders, n.d.). However, the
district court judge passed on the case to the police before the case went to trial. The dismissal
was due to the State police department not being the one to fire Nancy, so therefore, shouldn’t be
held responsible for her separation from the department.
Decisions
The conclusion of the trial was that Nancy did not follow proper and appropriate internal
procedures that were in place to handle sexual harassment in the defense sector at the time. Due
to this, the case was dismissed finding that the police department was not responsible for her
separation since they had not taken tangible employment action (Pennsylvania State Police V.
Suders, n.d.). The judge instead pointed out that Nancy had not followed procedure to file a
report against the treatment and then left of her own will.
Nancy decided to file an appeal against this court decision and the original ruling was
overturned. Instead, the ruling decided that the severity of the harassment that Nancy had
endured from her supervisors that it was considered tangible employment action and forced
Nancy to quit (Pennsylvania State Police V. Suders, n.d.). Sure, the police department did not
terminate Nancy, but they were directly responsible for her separation from the agency. Due to
5
this, the police department could not use her lack of appropriate reporting procedure as their
defense.
The supreme court ruling in 2004 was 8 to 1 in favor for Nancy (Pennsylvania State
Police V. Suders, n.d.). The following judges voted in favor of Nancy:
1. William H. Rehnquist
2. John Paul Stevens
3. Sandra Day O’Connor
4. Antonin Scalia
5. Anthony M. Kennedy
6. David H. Souter
7. Ruth Bader Ginsburg
8. Stephen G. Breyer
With the one judge voted in favor of the Pennsylvania State Police:
9. Clarence Thomas
The written decision was composed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg with the statement that a
“person would have felt compelled to resign” after the treatment Nancy endured (Pennsylvania
State Police V. Suders, n.d.). Adding that the police station could not use the proper reporting
procedure not being followed by her to their defense since they had failed to protect her against
workplace harassment (Pennsylvania State Police V. Suders, n.d.). Instead, the worker was faced
with such an impossible situation, that it seemed like there was only one option at the time.
In this way, the deciding factor was that the supervisors had made the work environment
so unsafe for the worker, that the worker had no choice but to quit. This case went on to be a
6
nationally known case with the surprising ruling to the appeal since procedure wasn’t followed
by the employee and the employee technically was not terminated by the employer.
Solutions
The appeal ruling of the court case was in line with human resource practices and
teachings within public administration. However, the true solution to cases like the one reviewed
is for employers of all sectors to internally prevent and handle situations of harassment in ways
that do not lead to the victim leaving the entity by resignation of termination. Wrongful
separation and termination can happen for various reasons such as harassment or discrimination
among others. However, it is the responsibility of the employer, and more specifically, the human
resources leader, to ensure that these aspects are handled and managed appropriately. If not, they
can be huge risks to the employer, as well as create horrible working environments for the
workers.
All organizations, whether a part of the public or private sector are businesses and have to
consider finances. This is even true for non-profit organizations since they still have to consider
their budget and final line when it comes to providing the services they offer. While it’s
understood this is the employer’s main focus, the focus of the human resources team is different.
Human resource leaders must maintain focus on workplace environment, morale, ethics. It is not
only important for the success of the entity through productivity, but also imperative for the
reputation and namesake of the entity since lack of focus in these areas leads to lawsuits like the
one discussed above (Nigro et al., 2012, p. 137).
Furthermore, and most importantly, leaders in public administration and within human
resource teams need to understand the importance of fair and equal treatment. Proverbs 22:2
7
states, “The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the maker of them all.” (King James Bible,
1611/1984). This is also how leaders of the public sector must think of people working under and
over them. Not just in a way that they respect each individual and offer equal treatment, but in a
much more passionate way where they set forward to use their power to implement cultural
training for their establishments.
Conclusion
Retention and separation are a complicated and delicate process in any work
environment. The same stands true for the public sector which has a hard time retaining quality
workers and can often have complicated separations in many fields. Nancy Drew Suders, who
worked for the Pennsylvania State police department in 1998, faced severe sexual harassment by
the hands of her supervisors and was met with indifference when she tried to reach out to the
appropriate parties about the treatment. After leaving the place of employment, she sued the state
police department, and although her case was dismissed, the appeal reviewed by the supreme
court ruled in her favor.
The ruling was overturned due to the workplace not providing a safe environment which
was seen as tangible action in her separating from the employer. A positive work environment is
important for ensuring that staff is comfortable with reporting issues and the organization is not
liable for mistakes made by other workers when handled correctly. All people should be treated
equally, and human resource leaders should not only model this, but they should also instruct and
teach other the workers to model this behavior as well. Equal and fair treatment modeled by
workers will help to increase the positivity of the workplace environment and increase retention,
as well as lessening separation and the reasons for separation that bring shame and liability upon
the employer.
8
References
Bell, K. (2019). Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders. The Encyclopedia of Women and Crime, 1–
2. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118929803.ewac0394
King James Bible. (1984). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1611).
Nigro, L. G., Nigro, F. A., & Kellough, J. E. (2012). The new Public Personnel administration.
Cengage Learning.
Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved June 18, 2024, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-95
Sifuna-Evelia, M. (2017). Human resource management practices: A Biblical Perspective.
Xuecheng, W., Iqbal, Q., & Saina, B. (2022). Factors affecting employee’s retention: Integration
of situational leadership with social exchange theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872105
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
