Per your request, I am writing a memorandum outlining a potential recent claim of constructive discharge. Recently, in lieu of Happy Toy’s growth and expansion, the production schedule has changed requiring production employees to work 12 hour rotating shifts four consecutive days in a seven day period (Monday-Sunday). Office hours will remain the same (Monday-Friday, 08:00-17:00). Production employee Tom Arnold has filed a constructive discharge claim due to the new hours requiring him to work on a religious holy day, and quit pending the schedule change. This claim must be taken seriously as constructive discharge can result in litigations and can be rightfully covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This memo will depict how constructive discharge is relevant to this scenario, a protected category under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 relevant to this scenario, recommend a company response with support, and recommend steps the company should take in order to avoid future litigations.

As a legal concept, constructive discharge is fully relevant to this situation as it can be covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which specifically encompasses religious precedence. Constructive discharge can cover Mr. Arnold provided no reasonable accommodations were made in order to circumvent the situation. Happy Toy’s must fully understand the severity of these allegations, as well as the rights and preventative measures that will protect the firm from further litigations and legal expenses moving forward. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2014), constructive discharge will have occurred for Mr. Arnold provided Happy Toy’s forced him to resign by creating a work environment so inhospitable and intolerable in which a reasonable person would not be able to stay.
Based on the information provided, Mr. Arnold’s case should not be upheld because the shift change occurred due to an increase in company growth. The shift change will also be affecting all production personnel and is not specific to Mr. Arnold. Though religious reasoning is specified by the employee for constructive discharge, and can be covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there are no other grounds indicating the constructive discharge will be upheld in the given context.
Since Mr. Arnold was not fired from the company, but rather quit after the policy came into effect, these allegations will be difficult to justify. There are two directions Mr. Arnold may pursue in litigations against Happy Toy’s, one being the reasonable person(s) test, and the other being the specific intent test. Both of these are viable possibilities which may yield different results. The reasonable person test affirms that Mr. Arnold was unofficially forced to resign due to the working conditions being so intolerable that a reasonable person would not stay. The other will come by way of the specific intent test which must presents findings that intolerable working conditions were created with the specific intent to unofficially force Mr. Arnold to resign. In order to determine Happy Toy’s defense, all parties involved must be interviewed and Supervisor’s must give accurate accounts of any potential issues Mr. Arnold has brought to light. The careful review of Mr. Arnold’s file will be imperative in order to determine whether there is evidence of constructive discharge. This will be inherently important as Happy Toy’s may be held liable for damages caused to Mr. Arnold if findings are upheld.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 primarily targets organizations with more than 15 employees from discriminatory employment practices with regards to race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Mr. Arnold’s case of constructive discharge may be upheld if this act is deemed to have been violated in the process making working conditions intolerable and unbearable for the employee.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an employer may not discriminate against an applicant or employee based on religion by way of treating applicants or employees differently because of their religious beliefs – or lack of, subjecting employees to harassment because of their religious beliefs – or lack of, denying a requested reasonable accommodation of an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs – or lack of, or retaliate against an applicant or employee who has engaged in a protected activity (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011). The act specifically addresses entitlement to reasonable accommodations unless the accommodations would pose undue hardship for the employer. The undue hardship must pose “more than de minimis” cost burden on the employer’s behalf. The relevance of the religious protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the scenario prevails in Mr. Arnold quitting Happy Toy’s due to a scheduling conflict requiring him to work on a religious holy day.
Religion is very broadly described under the Act and encompasses religious observance such as in Mr. Arnolds’s case. Religious observance is explained to include attending worships or services, praying, wearing or displaying religious garb or symbols, and adhering to strict religious dietary restrictions. As this is covered under the Act, it is imperative that Happy Toy’s understand the potential legal ramifications for discriminatory practices which are otherwise protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It is recommended that Happy Toy’s mediate the charges of constructive discharge on the grounds that the entire production staff was subjected to the same schedule change. Mediation may offer Happy Toy’s a more cost effective approach to resolving the issue and retaining a skilled and trained employee. The production schedule change was due in part to an increase in company growth which was supported by changing the production schedule to best fit the company’s operational objectives. Mediation has the potential to offer Happy Toy’s a much less expensive and much more expedient resolution than traditional litigation. Using a third party arbitrator can help remediate the situation providing proportionate compromise on both the employee’s and employer’s behalf.
Going through litigation may be more costly than mediation; however, it may result in no restitution being paid out. Litigation can be a lengthy and potentially costly process. Choosing this process is not recommended based on the company’s standings and the potential financial burden it may impose. Grounds for a settlement are currently minimal given the current scenario between Happy Toy’s and Mr. Arnold. It will also be recommended that Happy Toy’s not pursue a settlement with Mr. Arnold until mediation has been attempted in order to reach a resolve. A settlement may result in a more than necessary cost for Happy Toy’s and also have additional legal stipulations surrounding the settlement.

Mr. Arnold’s case of constructive discharge on grounds of religious discrimination may be justified by first establishing a prima facie case in which proves: (1) he or she has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) he or she informed the employer of this belief; (3) he or she was disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement (Turpen v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 1984). Only when this has been satisfied may Mr. Arnold pursue his constructive discharge case and does the burden of proof shift to Happy Toy’s. It must then be demonstrated that the company had attempted to reasonably accommodate Mr. Arnold’s religious needs. Based on the information provided it would be recommended to first try and mediate the situation in order to circumvent the litigation process and save on unnecessary legal expenses. Though Mr. Arnold is alleging the enforcement of Happy Toy’s new policy of shift work is discriminatory because it requires him to work on a religious holy day, a constructive discharge claim must be substantiated by the claimant. Motion to mediate the situation through an arbitrator will potentially offer the best outcome for both involved parties.
Mr. Arnold has filed his constructive discharge claim on the proclamation that a schedule change will impede his ability to observe a religious holy day – which is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are guidelines in which a constructive discharge case may be pursued including conditions and reasonable parameters. As asserted in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders (2004), under the constructive discharge doctrine, an employee's reasonable decision to resign because of unendurable working conditions is assimilated to a formal discharge for remedial purposes…Working conditions must become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to resign. In order to establish a hostile work environment, plaintiffs must show harassing behavior sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [their] employment. As indicated in the preceding excerpt, conditions must be established which are hostile and pervasive to the alteration of employment conditions. Then, and only then, can a constructive discharge claim be substantiated and Happy Toy’s held liable for damages. Using a mediator to establish common grounds of accommodations which will sufficiently suppress the constructive discharge claim will potentially reduce the expenses involved with traditional litigation and keep Happy Toy’s out of the judicial system.
The current scenario depicts Mr. Arnold quitting after the policy change took effect and remains unclear of what, if any, parameters were set surrounding possible reasonable accommodations made in lieu of his religious beliefs. Grounds for a constructive discharge were formulated based on alleged unbearable and intolerable working conditions because of Mr. Arnold’s inability to observe a religious holy day. Mediating the situation at hand to determine if there are viable solutions for both the employee and employer which would not result in an undue hardship on the employer’s behalf would produce commendable results. As affirmed in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977), the term ‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business. As noted in the Trans World Airlines case, the employer must attempt to reasonably accommodate the employee’s religious observance. The importance of this compromise will be nothing short of important based on potential litigation and may warrant the skillset of an arbitrator for mediation purposes.

There are many steps in which Happy Toy’s may take to avoid legal ramifications such as this constructive discharge claim moving forward. For instance, Happy Toy’s must ensure mandated human resource policies are in place for anonymously reporting potential workplace discrepancies such as discriminatory behaviors. This will help prevent potential backlash and retaliation if an employee demonstrates a complaint or assists in an investigation. Happy Toy’s may also work to develop more specific, yet flexible, schedules which can be coordinated around the production employees. When scheduling discrepancies arise, help may come by way of asking for volunteers to fill in for employees in need of relief on days of religious observance whereas it will not impose on another’s work practices by doing so. Another way to bring diversity to the workplace may come from developing unbiased clubs and organizations within the establishment to create a culture of sensitivity and understanding. Happy Toy’s may also draft and train its employees on ethics and diversity compliance in an effort to educate the work force of the importance of understanding and compromise. Devoting time to implement a strict ethics policy citing the unacceptable behaviors of discrimination in the workplace will help Happy Toy’s negate potential litigations moving forward. Training on ethics compliance should happen regularly and on a local level to ensure the culture has fostered a positive acceptance of such content. In doing so, employees will see the value in diversity and negative effects of discrimination in the workplace. Managers must be extensively trained in these regards to ensure proper reporting, documentation, and deterrence of such asinine behaviors. Combining these core competencies and distributing them to all employees will offer a vigilant approach to preventing workplace discrimination.