Memo
To: CEO Toy Company
From: Troy Ziegler (Student ID 000300080)
Date: July 17, 2014
Subject: Responding to employee claim of constructive discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
A.Constructive discharge, as a legal concept, must first be explained. This legal concept states that even though an employee resigned voluntarily, they were forced to do so by a work environment that was so intolerable a reasonable person would also not be able to continue working for a company (Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices, 2014). Basically, this legal concept was enacted to protect employees from discrimination in the workplace. Although the employee quit voluntarily, this concept provides that they may still be entitled to the same benefits (such as unemployment insurance or severance pay,) as someone who was terminated or laid off. Whether or not the resigned employee would receive this financial compensation is up to the court system. The reason this concept is relevant to the employee in question is because of a religious practice. The new work schedule at the toy company uses shifts that rotate throughout the week and conflict with the resigned employee's holy day. The employee thus believes that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, his religious beliefs have been discriminated against, giving him claim to constructive discharge.
B.Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination of an employee based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2014). Race pertains to ethnic origins such as Caucasian, Asian, and African. Color is similar and refers to societal color associations related to race. An example would be to call someone of African decent black, or someone of Caucasian decent white. Religion refers to a belief system that is present in the world. The predominant of which are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Sex simply refers to whether a person is male or female. Finally, national origin simply means which country a person was born. The protected category relevant here is clearly religion. The employee believes the new work schedule is in direct interference with his holy day, one on which he feels he should not work.
C, C1.The first point to make before recommending action is an explanation of the reasonable person test. As mentioned in the explanation of constructive discharge, the resignation of the employee must be because another reasonable employee would have also resigned because the workplace became intolerable. The company has three options for a response: mediate; bring the employee in to hash out an arrangement that will work for him, litigate; take the employee to court, or settle; provide monies to the employee. The correct action is to mediate. Litigation often leads to years in court and a lot of money spent by the toy company, something to be avoided at all costs. Settling makes no sense because the toy company can first mediate with the employee without having to pay him.
Larry Hardison worked for Trans World Airlines and needed new hours because of a holy day. The union and TWA could not come up with a schedule that worked for Hardison and he was ultimately terminated. The district court ruled that TWA had made reasonable accommodations for Hardison's religious beliefs (Trans World Airlines, INC. v. Hardison ET AL., 1977). This is a strong reason to mediate. As long as the toy company can mediate and come up with reasonable accommodations for the employee, this case's precedence is helpful to the company's cause should the employee file suit.
Similarly, Martha Young, an employee of Southwestern Savings and Loan Association, resigned based on claims of constructive discharge. Young was an atheist who had to attend a mandatory monthly meeting that involved a religious prayer to kick the meeting off. She refused to go and quit her job. She then tried to use constructive discharge as the reason for her resignation. The district court found that no religious intimidation had been used and the resignation could therefore not be construed as constructive discharge (Martha D. Young v. Southwester Savings and Loan Association, 1975). This toy company could use this precedence if taken to court. Clearly, the toy company did not practice any form of religious intimidation toward the resigned employee. Although the work schedule interfered with his holy day, intimidation could hardly be argued, and a mediation could be used to come up with a solution before court would be necessary.
Lastly, taken directly from law, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (42 U.S. Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices). They key word here is discharge. The toy company did not discharge the employee, the employee quit. Although this circumstance lends itself to constructive discharge, court can certainly be avoided. As previously stated, mediation is the best way to find an alternative schedule for this employee. Although the company has expanded and needs these new shifts, clearly an exception can and should be made for an employee who feels this strongly about his religious rights.
C2. The very first step that should be taken by the toy company is to bring the company's discrimination and harassment policies to the forefront and present them to potential and current employees. It only makes sense that a clear line of communication is established when it comes to sensitive matters such as discrimination and harassment. This way, potential and current employees clearly understand the steps and procedures to take if they are harassed, witness harassment, have their Title VII rights violated, etc. Adjunct to this, the toy company should provide diversity training to properly inform employees of the various types of people they are working with.
Another very important step related specifically to work hours. This company employs people of many different religious faiths. Often times, different religions have different holy days. The toy company feels that because of booming business, a rotating schedule, where employees end up working every day of the week, is necessary. This is fine as long as the toy company makes accommodations for holy days. Every employee should be asked what day of the week they can not work. There is a high probability that many employees will have no issue working any day of the week (based on religion.) It will then become easy to accommodate the few employees who take exception to certain days and rotate them on days that do not conflict with their beliefs.
Lastly, the company should conduct a diversity analysis of the employees. The goal is to make sure that the company is diverse, with employees of various ages, different sexes, different religious beliefs, etc. This is crucial to potential employees who may very well want to know, for example, if any minorities are in management positions. Obviously, no employee should ever have to provide their religious affiliation unless it creates a conflict of interest with their job and job hours. The bottom line is that the toy company should be extremely transparent so as to avoid further issues related to each prtoected category of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Open and honest communication between employer and employee leads to trust and a positive work environment. Now that the toy company's business is booming it only makes sense that everyone is on the same page and happy to come to work.

References
42 U.S. Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices. Retrieved July 20, 2014 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2.Martha D. Young v. Southwestern Savings and Loan Association, 509 F.2d 140 (1975).
Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices. (2014). Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (2014). Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
Trans World Airlines, INC., v. Hardison ET AL, 432 U.S. 63 (1977).