Constructive Discharge free essay sample

Title VII was modified in 2000 to include that one cannot discriminate one who associates with said such protected class member, ex. interracial marriage (Dempsey Petshce, 2006). Given the current situation Title VII applies to this case. The employee has proved that they are indeed a member of a protected class, in this case religion. As a company we have a duty to respect and accommodate the employee who notifies us of a religious accommodation. We must accommodate the employee within reason as to no discriminate or hinder their religious practices. Constructive Discharge Within Title VII there is an element called ‘constructive discharge’. Constructive discharge is a recourse for employees to use under Title VII. It allows the employee to â€Å"quit† his or her job due to intolerable conditions, which any reasonable person would be forced to â€Å"quit† the employment position. In other words the employee uses constructive discharge to convince the court that his or her act of quitting is one in the same as the employer discharging the employee (Dempsey Petsche, 2006). We will write a custom essay sample on Constructive Discharge or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page In this case the employee is attempting to convince the court that he was forced to quit due to an intolerable condition. He states he was not able to practice his religion with the new work schedule policy. The employee under Title VII has a legal precedence to which the employer is require to make a reasonable accommodation to allow the employee to practice his religious belief (Dempsey Petsche, 2006). Recommended Response to Employee’s Allegations The ABC Toy Company has many options in responding to this employee’s allegation against us. Here are four recommendations that may prevent any further litigation. When an allegation of discrimination occurs the employee must pass the McDonnell Douglas test, which states, â€Å"a plaintiff must first demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination. † Prima facie has four parts 1) the employee is a part of protected class, religion in this case. 2) The employee is qualified for the position, which he is. 3) The employee must show he/she was subject to adverse employment action, which he was not. 4) The employer treated similarly situated employees not in the protected class more favorably, which ABC Toy Company did not. All employees where subject to the same new work schedule regardless of their protected class. Given the McDonnell Douglas test the employee is not able to demonstrate prima facie. The employee did not inform the ABC Toy Company of his religious needs. According to Chrysler Corp. v. Mann (1977) â€Å"an employee who is disinterested in informing his employer of his religious needs may forego the right to have his beliefs accommodated by his employer†. The employee made his religious needs known to ABC Toy Company after he quit. The ABC Company cannot be held liable when the employee informed the company after his discharge. A similar ruling was made in the case between Cary v. Carmichael (1995), which concluded â€Å"employer not liable for disciplining employee†¦ when employee failed – until after his discharge – to explain that tardiness was because he attended a prayer service†. Even though tardiness was used in the Cary v. Carmichael case the context of the ruling stand, that the employer is not held liable for a Title VII violation if the employer was not informed of the religious accommodation. In the case between Perry v.Harris Chemin, Inc. (1997) the court ruled, â€Å"an employee who quits without giving his employer a reasonable chance to work out a problem has not been constructively discharged. † If the employee had informed ABC Toy Company about his religious needs there would have been a reasonable accommodation. This accommodation would have come from a schedule change with another employee or a lateral transfer to accommodate the employee’s religious needs. Future Recommendations It is recommended that The ABC Toy Company review Title VII of the Civil Rights Act before making policy changes that may affect a protected class. When policy changes are made supervisors and managers should be educated on meeting the needs of protected class members. It is also recommended that before policies are implemented that employees are informed of their rights and allow a period of time where employees have an opportunity to present any conflicts in regards to their protected class (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin Cardy, 2007). It is also recommended that in order to protect the company from future violations of Title VII it is to develop a diversity-training program and hold routine diversity audits. Constructive Discharge free essay sample This memo should clear up any questions you have remaining about the situation of the constructive discharge/ violation of Title VII lawsuit filed by our former employee, and will also give some suggestions for how we can avoid this problem in the future. First, it should be made clear that constructive discharge is that act of â€Å"forcing an employee out of a job with an ultimatum to either resign or face one of several unpleasant consequences†, which could be, among other things, unwanted transfer, loss of benefits, uncomfortable or intolerable working conditions (Paul Seeberger, 2002, p. ). This is obviously clearly related to the lawsuit that has been filed against our company, as our former employee is attempting to assert that this company took action and attempted to force her out of her job by making a schedule that would for her to work on her holy day. Furthermore, this lawsuit also attests that by making this schedule that required her to work on her holy day, our company is in violation of Title VII, of which Section 703(a) states, â€Å"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, privileges, or employment because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin† (FindLaw, n. We will write a custom essay sample on Constructive Discharge or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page d. , Sec 703. ) In my opinion, our company cannot be found guilty of constructive discharge, but unfortunately we could be found guilty of religious discrimination under Title VII.nce againintolerable for this employee. However, even though we had no intent to make the working conditions intolerable, recent court rulings have determined that employer intent actually has a less significant role in determining constructive discharge. The method primarily relied upon is the ‘reasonable person’ test, which means that if any reasonable person would have found those working conditions intolerable, then constructive discharge has occurred. Considering that we have had no other complaints or lawsuits resulting from the production schedule change, based on this criterion, we would once again not be found guilty of constructive discharge. However, I have found us in violation of Title VII in one primary way. In the case Alexander Shapolia vs. Los Alamos National Laboratory and John Whetten, the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit stated in the court decision, â€Å"Under Title VII, an employer is required to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices or beliefs where accommodation does not cause undue hardship to the company’s business interests† (Ebel, 1993, Sec. 14). Our company changed the employees’ schedules based on production demands. We have no evidence that shows if we were to accommodate this employer by allowing her to work on non-holy days that we would be caused unreasonable hardship. For this reason and this reason only, we are in violation of Title VII based on religious discrimination. To handle this situation, I feel that we should offer this former employee her job back, should she so desire it, with a modified work schedule that allows her to have holy days off of work. Furthermore, even though this employee has filed a lawsuit against us, I feel that we can settle this out of court and incur a much smaller company liability than if this were to fully go through court proceedings. In the future, our company should make it a priority to be more careful to avoid any potential lawsuits. In order to do so, I have some suggestions for steps we should take. First, I suggest we consult with our HR department before making any more major changes to company operations that could change employee benefits, privileges, or schedules.