By: Scott D. Wilson
The EEOC represents Efrin Chavez, a surgical technician who was hired by Northwest Arkansas Hospitals in January 2022 for a position in the Labor and Delivery Unit. The EEOC alleged that the hospital discriminated against Mr. Chavez because of his sex (male) by subjecting him to different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, and claimed he was constructively discharged when he resigned six months later in July 2022. The hospital’s motion for partial dismissal targeted only the constructive discharge claim, not the sex discrimination claim.
Mr. Chavez’s responsibilities included setting up tables with instruments, taking patient vitals, placing fetal monitors, cleaning post-procedure areas, bathing babies, assisting during deliveries, and taking blood samples to labs. Despite Mr. Chavez’s expectations to work with surgical instruments and observe deliveries, two doctors at the hospital refused to allow him to participate in deliveries, citing discomfort with male surgical technicians in the Labor and Delivery Unit. This led to Mr. Chavez feeling isolated and humiliated, which, along with a lack of on-the-job training, allegedly made his working conditions intolerable, forcing him to resign.
The court evaluated the constructive discharge claim under Rule 12(b)(6), which requires a claim to be supported by sufficient factual matter to be plausible on its face. To establish constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show that he was discriminated against to the point where a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign and that he actually resigned. The analysis considers the frequency and severity of discriminatory conduct, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interferes with work performance.
The court found that the EEOC failed to plausibly allege facts showing that a reasonable person in Mr. Chavez’s position would have felt compelled to resign. The court noted that Mr. Chavez’s feelings of isolation and humiliation were subjective and did not demonstrate intolerable working conditions to a reasonable person. The EEOC’s allegations were primarily based on the restriction imposed by two doctors, and there was no evidence of harassment, threats, or poor performance reviews due to his exclusion. Furthermore, Mr. Chavez was able to train and assist in deliveries for other doctors. Given the sensitive context of patient privacy, the court concluded that no reasonable employee would find the exclusion intolerable.
As a result, the court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss the constructive discharge claim without prejudice.
The case isEqual Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Nw. Arkansas Hosps., LLC, No. 5:24-CV-5195, 2025 WL 3679759 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 18, 2025).
BSW Labor and Employment Law Blog 