## Facts

- Redina Brady worked for Elixir Industries as a division manager.
- She alleged sex-based pay discrimination over nearly four years, culminating in her January 1980 resignation.
- Before trial, the court excluded Brady’s intended pay comparison to other division managers after finding she failed to show her job was substantially similar to theirs.
- During trial, Brady moved to amend her FEHA sex-discrimination claim to allege she was paid less than male subordinates and predecessors; the trial court denied the amendment as too late and outside the pleadings.
- The trial court granted nonsuit on the FEHA claim because the excluded comparison evidence eliminated Brady’s pleaded basis for discrimination.
- On Brady’s tort claim for constructive discharge, evidence included testimony that she was paid less because she was a woman and that she received a salary equal to or lower than two men who were arguably her subordinates.
- The jury was instructed that constructive discharge required proof Elixir intended to cause Brady to quit, and the jury returned a defense verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion by denying Brady’s mid-trial motion to amend her FEHA pay-discrimination theory after excluding her original comparison evidence, where the new theory relied on facts developed in discovery and known to Elixir.
2. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing that constructive discharge requires employer intent to force resignation, rather than an objective standard based on knowingly permitting intolerable conditions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Elixir and remanded.
- The court held the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion by denying Brady leave to amend her FEHA claim because Elixir did not show prejudice and the amendment rested on known, discovered facts.
- The court held the constructive-discharge instruction was prejudicially erroneous because constructive discharge does not require proof the employer intended to make the employee resign.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts should permit amendment of pleadings at trial absent a showing of prejudice to the opposing party; denying amendment may be an abuse of discretion when the amendment relies on facts already at issue and known through discovery.
- Constructive discharge does not require the employer’s specific intent to force resignation.
- Constructive discharge may be shown when an employer, aware of working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign, fails to remedy those conditions within a reasonable time.

## Conclusion

The appellate court set aside the defense judgment because Brady should have been allowed to amend her FEHA claim absent demonstrated prejudice, and because the jury was incorrectly told that constructive discharge requires intent to force resignation rather than an objective, employer-knowledge standard.


Brady v. Elixir Indus., 196 Cal. App. 3d 1299, 242 Cal. Rptr. 324 (Ct. App. 1987)