June 19, 2014
From: Mark Jackson Manager, Elementary Division

To: The CEO

Subject: Former Employee's Constructive Discharge Claim
______________________________________________________________________

I received notified from the company’s attorney about a former employee who filed a claim against the company citing constructive discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Findings:
What is constructive discharge and how is it relevant to this situation. At the beginning of the New Year, a new shift policy was implemented to keep up with the company growth. We required employees in the production group to work 12-hour shifts with 4 days off in a rotating shift, which means some of those working days may fall into the employee’s religious holy day. The former employee quit after this implementation.
The former employee is claiming a constructive discharge. Constructive discharge is a discriminatory practice where an employee is forced to resign because of perceived an intolerable work environment, courts usually agree to the employee if they determine that a reasonable person would also feel same in the same position (Paul, 2002). Courts also require employees that are filing under constructive discharge to show that the employee as created intolerable working condition with the intent of forcing resignation was deliberate (Paul, 2002). It is the responsibility of our former employee to show prima facie evidence that the discrimination has occurred (David A. GOLDMEIER and Terry C. Goldmeier, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee 2003). Prima facie in cases of religious discrimination should include, first, the plaintiff has a sincerely held religious belief; second, the plaintiff informed the employer of the beliefs and how it conflicts with their employment conditions; and third, the employer subjected the plaintiff to an adverse employment environment (Shaker).
After my research I believe constructive discharge did not occur and therefore I recommend we defend our position in court.

How is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 relevant to the scenario?
According to the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), one of the provisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pertaining to religious accommodation states “employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose on undue hardship”(EEOC). Our former employee is claiming that because the required shift change would include working on religious holy days, unlike the pervious shifts that had production employees working from Monday through Friday. The act also states it is unlawful for employers to discriminate in terms of compensation, conditions, and privilege due to an employee’s religion (findlaw.com). An additional factor that will be taken into account is the reasonable person test, this is a test that asks if a hypothetical person with exercises average care, skill, and judgment would make the same choice (uslegal.com). If our shift change was abusive or hostile we should have seen all of our employees quit, however, our former employee is the only one who as left.
It is my recommendation that we maintain that there was neither a constructive discharge that occurred nor violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As stated earlier the burden of proving the prima facie case against us falls on our former employee and it will eventually fail. In Lawson v. State of Washington (2002), the state won the case which was based on constructive discharge on religious discrimination. The plaintiff showed that he has a genuine religious belief in conflict with his duties and informed his employer of his beliefs. In this case the third prima facie of proving that he was discharged for failing to comply with the conflicting requirements was not accepted by the court because he quit. With our case, proving this third prima facie will also be difficult because our former employee just quit, there was no intent on the company’s part to discharge based on his religion. The change of the shift policy was implemented everyone in the production staff. There is also the fact that the company was never informed about the religious belief to be in conflict with the duties, so the other prima facie evidence would be hard to prove in court.
Our former employee quit and as a company we showed no motive of deliberate discharge. In the case David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company (2003), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit dismissed the complaint for religious discrimination. Allstate had planned to require their offices to be open on Friday and Saturday, the Goldmeiers, who were licensed insurance agents of Allstate, resigned because they are Sabbath-Observant Orthodox Jews and can’t go to work from sundown on Fridays to sundown Saturdays. When the court learned that the Goldmeiers resigned and did not suffered discipline or discharge. Our case and the Goldmeiers case are very similar. Our former employee quit because the rotating shifts could fall on a religious holy day, he was not deliberately discharged or disciplined over this issue. In the Goldmeiers’ case their religious beliefs were known to Allstate and the company made recommendations to work it out, they could hire a licensed agent to on the days the couple could not work, however, the couple still claimed constructive discharge. In our case the former employee made no effort to talk to us about his religious beliefs.
In the case of Tepper v. Potter the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (2007) ruled that job loss or actual discipline is needed before a claim religious discrimination can be upheld. Tepper, who was Messianic Jew working for the Postal Service and had been allowed to avoid Saturday work for 10 years so he could observe his Sabbath along with other Jewish holidays. Because of budget constraints staffing levels had to be reduced, this caused Tepper to have difficulty scheduling his Saturdays off. The Postal Service tried to accommodate his religious beliefs by asking volunteers to work Saturdays. After several of Tepper’s co-employees complained to management and the Union voted to terminate his accommodation and Management agreed. Tepper was informed that the Postal Service could no longer accommodate his request not to work Saturdays due to the hardship on other employees. He was told that he should reserve some of his vacation time, and he could take time off without pay or exchange days off with other carriers. According to Tepper being forced to take days off without pay which reduced his annual pay and his pension constituted discipline or discharge. However, the court citing a Supreme Court’s precedent which stated that more than the loss of pay is required to demonstrate discipline or discharge. In our case we did not reduce our ex-employees pay or require him to take time off with-out pay. Our ex-employee quit before we could try to accommodate his needs.
There are steps we can take to help avoid legal issues with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
With this new work schedule people will be working on religious holy days. It will be important be make sure that all new employees are made aware of the schedule and verify they can work on those days.
To remove any impression of bias we should change the work shifts of all the employees to that of the production staff. This may cause some issues with customers so we will need to make sure we have full coverage.
We need to make sure that all information related to our employees including interview questions, performance reviews, or issues/complaints filed be well documented and kept safe.
Any major changes within the operations of the company should be discussed with the employees’ so they can voice and issues and/or questions. This way we can get a good judgment of the reactions from the employees and help improve the moral of the company.
We need to schedule monthly training meetings with HR for our management staff to make sure everyone is up-to-date with any and all regulations in reference to employment law. References
Paul, R. (2002). Constructive Discharge: When Quitting Constitutes Illegal Termination. Review of Business, 23(2), 23.
Facts About Religious Discrimination. (n.d.). Facts About Religious Discrimination. Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://www1.eeoc.gov//eeoc/publications/fs-religion.cfm?renderforprint=1
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Equal Employment Opportunity - FindLaw. (n.d.). Findlaw. Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/title-vii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-equal-employment.html
Reasonable Man Theory Law & Legal Definition. (n.d.). Reasonable Man Theory Law & Legal Definition. Retrieved June 24, 2014, from http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reasonable-man-theory/
David A. GOLDMEIER and Terry C. Goldmeier, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 01-3888. Decided: July 24, 2003
Gregory LAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of WASHINGTON; The Washington State Patrol; Annette M. Sandberg, in her official capacity and individual capacity; Lowell M. Porter, in his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-35458. Decided: July 12, 2002
Tepper v Potter, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2983156 (6th Cir. Ohio)