| ABC Toy Company |
Memo
To: CEO ABC Toy Company
From:
Date: January 9, 2013
Re: Tittle VII: Constructive Discharge Charge A. Constructive Discharge
Constructive discharge is when the employment conditions become so intolerable the employee must resign (Dempsey & Petsche). It is believed that certain tactics by an employer can be used to force an employee’s resignation.
Constructive discharge is relevant to our situation because the employee believes that the work schedule provided was too intolerable for him to continue to work here. He believes that because of his religious beliefs we would not accomadate him, therefore forcing him to resign.
The employee in question since his hire date has enjoyed the ability to not work on Saturday or Sunday due to the manufacturing schedule. Due to our increase in production all employees must now work 12 hour shift with four days on and four days off. This schedule conflicted with his observance of holy day. Due to this the employee choose to resign. B. Title VII
Title VII is also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was created to prevent forms of discrimination related to racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities and women.
The official Title VII documents define:
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 to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

Section 2000e-2 a1 states:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer- 1. 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 or employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Title VII clearly states that no form of discrimination can be made based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. However, determining if discrimination has occurred can be debated. Title VII is relevant to our situation because the employee felt that he was being discriminated on based on his religious beliefs. The employee feels this because for many years he was able to enjoy a Monday through Friday work shift until the work scheduled was changed at the beginning of the year. At the beginning of the year he was no longer able to observe his religious holy day.
Title VII applies to our situation in that the employee in questions believes that he was discriminated on based on his religious beliefs. As stated above Sectione-2 a1 specifically stated that an employer cannot refuse to hire or discharge any individual based on, in our situation, religion. At this time the employee believed he was discriminated against based on his religious beliefs and was forced to resign due the intolerable work conditions he experienced. C. Company Response
It is believed that the company offered the employee reasonable accomadations. The company offered the employees the option of having volunteers work his shift and to switch the office staff. He did not find this sufficient and choose to resign. Due to these findings the company should litigate the charge.
It will be appropriate to litigate this charge due to the fact the employee was given opportunities to work in a different department, he never experienced discipline because of his inability to work this shift and was given the option of finding volunteers to work his shift.

C1. Legal references
To support this position I would like to give a synopsis of 3 court cases that are similar to our situation. 1. Tepper v Potter 2007 * The employee in this case was accommodated for the Sabbath to have Saturdays off for 10 years. After budget constraints led to decreasing staffing the employee was no longer able to have Saturdays off. This employee ultimately filed suit stating a violation of Title VII. * The court stated that the employee was required to show: 1. He held a sincere religious belief that conflicted with an employment requirement 2. Informed the employer of this conflict 3. Was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.
If the employee was able to prove this the employer would then have to show that they could not reasonably accommodate his request.
Ultimately the court determined that the employee could not meet the third requirement and ruled against the employee. (Tepper v Potter, 2007) * The case of Tepper v Potter is very similar to our situation. Both employees held a sincere religious and both employees informed the employers of this conflict and neither employee experienced discharge or discipline for failing to comply with the company policy. I believe that this case is the most similar to our situation and provices sufficient similarities for me to believe that litigation is the best option for our company 2. Miguel Sanchez-Rodriguez v AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc.,2012 * The employee after six years of employment had become a member of the Seventh Day Adventist and now required Saturdays off to accommodate the Sabbath. AT&T informed him that they would not be able to offer him Saturdays off. AT&T did offer him two different positions (that would have been a pay decrease) that did not require Saturday hours and assistance in in finding other employees to swap shifts. The employee then continued to miss Saturdays and begin to warn him of impending disciplinary actions. The employee at this time applied for other positions in the company and did not get them. Ultimately, the employee resigned stating that he found another position that allowed for Saturdays and more personal growth. * The court ruled against the employee stating that he did prove his case but that AT&T also proved that allowing him to have Saturdays off would cause undue hardship on AT&T. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim. They found that AT&T had demonstrated non-discriminatory reasons for their actions. (Sanchez-Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc, 2012) * I believe that the case of Miguel Sanchez-Rodriguez v AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc. is similar to out situation as well. Our company, like AT&T would experience undue hardship if we were to offer the employee that day off. I believe that due to increased factory demand we can prove undue hardship to the ABC Toy Company.

3. Marylyn Waltzer v Triumph Apparel Corp, 2010 * The employee requested to leave early on Fridays to observe Sabbath in her hometown daughters home state of Pennsylvania. Prior to going on leave for surgery the employee was allowed to leave early to observe Sabbath. While on leave her supervisors determined she was far behind on work and business had increased substantially, ultimately requiring the employee no longer leave early on Fridays upon her return to work. The employer offered the employee to leave at 3:00 on Fridays as well as a part-time position that required no Fridays, but with less pay. The two parties were unable to come to an agreement and the employee was fired. (Waltzer v. Triumph Apparel Corp, 2010) * The court ruled against the employee stating that reasonable accommodations were offered. * The case of Marylyn Waltzer v Triumph Apparel Corp, 2010 is similar to ABC Toy Company in that we also provided this employee with reasonable accomadations.

C2. Legal Recommendations
It is very important that the company avoid Title VII claims. We can achieve this by offering management training on Title VII. Also it will be very important to include human resources in any decisions that are made by any employee that may affect Title VII discriminatory rules. The company should also conduct a review of their policies and procedures to ensure that they are not in violation of any Title VII violations. This would include hiring practices, scheduling and pay. The EEOC offers no cost workshops and outreach that the company should take advantage of. The company should also hire a EEOC attorney to ensure continued compliance of Title VII.

D. Sources
Dempsey, G. E., & Petsche, J. N. (n.d.). Contrsuctive discharge. Retrieved from http://www.mls.lib.il.us/ennounce/librarylaw/librarylaw_08_06.pdf
Sanchez-Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, inc, 10-2177 (US District Court)
Tepper v Potter, F.3d, 2007 WL 2983156 (6th Cir. Ohio)
Waltzer v. Triumph Apparel Corp, F.Supp. 2d, NYLJ, Feb. 26, 2010 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)