INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: DONALD ERTL: CEO
FROM: M.T. ALLEN: HR SPECIALIST
SUBJECT: EMPLOYEE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE SUITE
DATE: 7/22/2012
CC: LEGAL DEPARTMENT
I. PROBLEM:
We have received notice of suit arguing that the plaintiff, a former employee, was forced to resign due to constructive discharge. The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even though the employee is the one who has quit, it is ERTL Toys that can be legally liable for lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages if the plaintiff prevailed.
II. DISCUSSION:
A. Constructive Discharge
Constructive discharge, or constructive dismissal as it is sometimes referred to, makes a legal claim that the employer made a material breach of contract that is implied between the defendant ERTL Toys (“Employer”), and the plaintiff (“Employee"), by making unilateral changes to the implied contract that forces the Employee into a default situation. (Various, 2011)1 Specifically, Employee argues that ERTL Toy’s unilateral change of work schedules made Employee’s continued employment untenable because working on specific holy days is forbidden according to his religious doctrine.
B. Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2
"Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin." (Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, 1964)2
The burden of proof will shift from the Employee to ERTL Toys if the Employee can provide evidence supporting a prima facie case. To support this argument, an employee proves a prima facie case of religious discrimination by showing that the employee: “(1) has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) informed the employer of this belief; and (3) was