of constructive discharge, the employer’s response must be adequate; the employee need not suffer prolonged harassment or discrimination. Lindemann, at 21-44 to 21-45 (footnotes omitted). Moreover, an employee can escape the requirement of coming forward by alleging there would have been no “chance for fair treatment” in the face of a complaint. Kimzey, 107 F.3d at 574. Courts have consistently required “something more” for constructive discharge claims than for ordinary discrimination or retaliation. Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 147, 124 S.Ct. 234 leventh Circuits consider whether the employee reasonably gave the employer an opportunity to respond before claiming constructive discharge. See, e.g., EEOC v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 774 F.3d 127, 134 (1st Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>); Trierweiler v. Wells Fargo Bank, 639 F.3d
holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding employee failed to meet reasonable person element when her choice to resign was grossly premature as it was based entirely on her own worstcasescenario assumption  alteration in original holding the petitioner abandoned her cat claim when she failed to raise it in her initial appellate brief holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties holding that it was proper for the medical examiner to estimate the victims time of death based on the results of her investigators lividity test as it was standard procedure for her to rely on tests performed by members of her office