To: CEO
From: Elementary Division Manager
Date: 01-07-2013
Subject: Constructive Discharge of Employee Brought to my attention by the company attorney, a former employee has filed a legal claim against the company claiming “constructive discharge” of religious discrimination falling under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The claim stems from an alteration in the previous production schedule to better support the company’s progress and development. The new schedule is requiring employees to work 12-hour shifts with four days at work and then four days off. The four work days can occur any day of the week, Monday through Sunday. The entire production staff is required to work this rotating shift. Office staff members, however, work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. This rotation schedule would have the former employee to be scheduled to work on a holy day considered by the former employee. This policy of scheduling led the former employee to resign. This memo aids in addressing the current situation for the company by defining constructive discharge, reviewing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and providing recommendation that the company could conduct in resolving the current situation.
Constructive Discharge
Constructive discharge can be defined has when an employee’s work condition are so intolerable that would evolve into resignation by the employee (Dempsey and Petsche, 2006). This simply can be described as the employer has intentionally created such a work environment forcing the employee to quit, and the scenario could be considered a form of wrongful termination. Though constructive discharge could be considered legally relevant, more justification is necessary. In the case Yoho v. Tecumseh Products, 1999 the court ruled in favor of the employer because the former employee could not provide reasonable grounds of proving that the work conditions were intolerable under the legal test of reasonable persons (Thompson, 2007). Our former employee cannot make a reasonable claim to support the argument of an intolerable change with the implementation of the new work schedule. Although the new production schedule may seem to violate the former employee’s religious rights the schedule is applied to all employees. Simply, no other employee resigned due to the change, and a notification of change in schedule was given well in advance to all employees.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
This Civil Rights Act deems unlawfulness of discrimination against any individual with respect to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In 1972, the Civil Rights Act “was amended to include section 2000e which imposed the religious accommodation obligations. That section requires accommodation of employee religious observance except when ‘undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business’ will result” Silbiger, 1985). The case of Vargas v. Sears could be used to support the matter at hand in which the employee of this case did not present to the employer reason of no alteration of the present work environment due to religious reasons (Vargas v. Sears Roebuck and Company, 1998). Simply, the former employee of our company did not provide information of not being able to work on Sundays due to religious reasons. This, also, could be supported by the Elmenayer v. ABF Freight case of 2001 when the employee did not provide reasonable information in proving that current work conditions conflicted with religious reasons. This disabling the company to provide reasonable commendation for the employee with religious concerns. Simply, our company cannot be found guilty for not providing religious commendations because the former employee never informed the company of such religious conflicts with the production schedule.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are being presented on behalf of the Company to resolve the present conflicting matter at hand.
1. Personally contact the former employee by sending a written letter of apology for the current misunderstanding of the current situations. This may personally appease the former employee and discontinue the legal matters at hand.
2. Create a policy that could be used in the future to provide how and when accommodations could be made for working religious holidays and sanctified days, as well as how schedule changes could be made if deemed appropriate.
3. A final recommendation that the company should litigate the current charges filing not guilty for violations represented of constructive discharge under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As presented by 3 separate legal cases within this present memo, the former employee seems to lack sufficient evidence.
I have full confidence that our company could successfully defend the violations that are being charged for the current matter. If you should have any further questions/concerns please contact me.
References
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 7 U.S.C 2000e (1964)
Dempsey, G., & Petche. J. (2006). Library Law. Constructive Discharge
Elmenayer v. ABF Freight, 318 F.3d 130, (2011)
Silbiger, S. L., Heaven Can Wait: Judicial Interpretation of Title VII’s Religious Accommodation Requirement since Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 53 Fordham L. Rev. 839 (1985)
Thompson, N.F. 2007. Understanding Constructive Discharge: Some Cases
Vargas v. Sears, Roebuck & Company,1998, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21148.
Yoho v. Tecumseh Products Company, 43 F.Supp.2d 1021, (Second US District Court, Wisconsin, 1999.