Library Law: Constructive Discharge, Research Paper Example

Background

On January 1, 2013, the toy company enacted a new work change policy. This has led to a former employee citing claim of constructive discharge because of the religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law serves as a legal guideline that ensures that all workers will have access to t a fair working environment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (FindLaw.com, n.d)  This scenario falls under three separate issues concerning the legal statute of Title VII: constructive discharge, religious accommodation, and religious discrimination. The purpose of this memo is to provide the legal concepts associated with the aforementioned case, as well as legal judgments and defense against the claims of the former employee.

Findings

There was a new shift policy enacted at the beginning of the New Year in order to keep up with the growth of the company. The employees in production groups are required to work 12-hour shift for four days on a rotating shift. This entails that some employees would have to work on employee’s religious day. The former employee who quit after this policy was enacted has claimed constructive discharge. A discriminatory practice in which an employee resigns by force because of the perception of an intolerable, unpleasant, or difficult work environment. In which the courts would agree generally that if the reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign from the organization. As seen in Steele v. Offshore Ship Building, Inc. (1989), in which the plaintiffs were subjugated to intolerable work environments, in which they were sexually harassed. The courts ruled that their constructive discharge claim however was not found, as the initial meeting, the sexual harassment stop once reported. As dictated by the law, “wrongful termination, the employer must violate the employment contract or public law by targeting the employee.” (Cornell University Law School, n.d) The courts require however that the employee show how the working conditions in the organization were intolerable with the intent of forcing the deliberate resignation. (Dempsey, Petsche, 2006). Moreover, the former employee (plaintiff) is responsible for showing prima facie evidence that demonstrates the occurred discrimination. In the cases of religious discrimination, prima facie evidence usually incorporates the genuine religious belief of the former employer (plaintiff) conflicted with their duties. Secondly, the employer must be informed of the beliefs of the plaintiff, and lastly, the employee must be subjected to discriminatory treatment by the employer, as demonstrated in Gregory Lawson v. State of Washington (2002).  Lawson too, filed a complaint against discrimination of religion by his employer. Even after meeting two of the three requirements of the Heller Test, needed in his claim, he did not satisfy the third in which he was discharge because of his religion.

Based on the newly enacted policy, the employee would work the rotating shift of four days on, and four days off, but would not be forced to work on every weekly religious holy day. The employee’s working condition would not seem unbearable, since he would be afforded two days off during the month. More so, the policy change affected all employees within the production group, so there was no intent to target the employee to force the resignation.

Religious Accommodation

Based on the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) applies to the religious accommodation. This allows employee’s religious accommodations based on their religious practices and beliefs, unless it would cause more than a minimum burden on the operations of the organization. Based on information provided by the EEOC (2013), it will be required by the employer to make adjustments that are reasonable to the work environment, in which the employee would be allowed to practice their religion. In the case of the former employee, they claim that the shift change required would include working on reserved religious days, unlike the previous work schedule that was standard Monday through Friday.

Based on the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Section 703 (a), “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…religion.” (FindLaw.com, n.d) Based on Porter vs. City of Chicago (2012), the court ruled that in order to claim a Title VII, three conditions needed to be met. This includes the practice or observance conflicting with a requirement for the employee that is religious in nature. The employee informed the employee of a reserved religious practice or observance, and the religious practice or observance was the basis of the discriminatory treatment or employee’s discharge. Based on these three conditions, the employee was only able to meet one, in which he requested the day off for religious weekly observance. Before his resignation, he did not inform the company of his concerns prior to or after the new policy change. Therefore, the company was not aware of the negative impact on his religious practices, in which the company would have made reasonable accommodations based on the Title VII claim.

Religious Discrimination

Title VII also implies that employers are prohibiting from discriminatory practices in hiring, firing, or other conditions or terms of employment. The former employee within this case claimed the company used his religious practices or beliefs as a basis to force him out of the company, based on the change in the work schedule. A requirement from the EEOC charges that a change in the schedule of the organization must be done so for reasons that are relevant to the business. In this case, the new policy was enacted because of the growth in the company. Religious discrimination could only be proven if the employer chose to use pretextual reasons in which discriminated against an employee, as found in Jackson v. City of Killen (1989). Jackson after receiving a two-week conduct probation period, filed a discriminatory complaint, after which she was discharged due to dissatisfaction with her work. Jackson believed that she was being discharged because of racial discrimination, but the judge could not find any prima facie evidence of the employer on this matter. The policy change however was for legitimate business reasons, in which would disprove any religious discrimination against an employee or any employee within the organization.

Recommendation

Based on the reasons mentioned, the former employee has no legal claim for constructive discharge, nor a Title VII claim for religious accommodation or religious discrimination. Using the case laws and the EEOC as references to combat these claims, the company is within their legal right to make changes to the work schedule, based on the legitimate needs of the business. (Jackson v. City of Killen (1989)) In using the Lawson v. State of Washington (2002), the employee had to prove prima facie evidence against the company. Even while proving he had a genuine religious belief in conflict with his duties; he did not inform the company. The employee quit, instead of coming to the company to share his concerns prior to or after the schedule change. The claims would be hard to prove in court because the former employee failed to meet the prima facie evidence against the company. In looking at the case of David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company (2003), the courts ruled in which the plaintiffs were not discharged or suffered discipline based on the new policy. In the Goldmeir case, the two plaintiffs that were Sabbath-observant Orthodox Jews that could not work on Fridays and Saturdays. The two plaintiffs quit, but Allstate, unlike the Toy Company knew of their beliefs. Allstate made accommodations for the two plaintiffs, but they still quit. The employee in our company made no effort to inform the company about his religious beliefs, in which the company could have made accommodations.

In order to avoid future legal issues related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the company should get the input of the employees when making significant changes to the schedule, or other work conditions. In this way, any objections can be dealt with accordingly based on the terms laid out by the EEOC. In addition, EEOC policies should be placed in open spaces so that employees be aware of their rights. When employees do share concern, make sure to document all conversation in regards to issues with Title VII, in doing so, issues will be investigated, and inform the right department heads. Inform incoming or potential employees of possible work schedule changes in which they will be able to share days in which they would not be able to work, so that we would be able to accommodate them reasonably. More importantly, staff would be required to attend annual human resources and employment laws training to keep them up to date.

References

Constructive Discharge. (2014). Cornel University Law School. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constructive_discharge

Dempsey, G., Petsche, J. (2006). Library Law: Constructive Discharge. NSLS. Retrieved from http://www.nsls.info/articles

David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company, 337 F.3d 629 (6^th Circuit, 2003).

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  (2013). Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination. EEOC. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/

Gregory Lawson v. State of Washington, DJDAR 7791 (9^th Circuit, 2002)

Latice Porter v. City of Chicago, 11-2006 (United States Court of Appeals 7th Circuit November 8, 2012).

Mary Steele v. Offshore Ship Building, Inc., 867 F.2d 1311 (United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. March 15, 1989).

Patricia Jackson v. City of Killeen, 874 F.2d 992 (United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 7, 1989).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Equal Employment Opportunity. (n.d). FindLaw.

Wrongful Constructive Discharge. (n.d). Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/wrongful_constructive_discharge