To: CEO Wilson
From: J. Godsey
Re: Constructive Discharge Claim of Emily Watson
As you asked, I have researched the claim of constructive discharge by former employee Emily Watson. Ms. Watson is claiming that she had no choice but to resign based on the fact that she was scheduled to work Sundays. According to Ms. Watson, this is an infringement on her religious beliefs and she is claiming discrimination and constructive discharge based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Constructive Discharge and the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits intentional discrimination or “practices that have the effect of against any person based on race, national origin, sexual preference, religion or disability discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex” (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). According to US Legal, Constructive Discharge occurs when a person’s work situation is so intolerable that the average person would quit (US Legal, n.d.). Ms. Watson is claiming that her new schedule made it impossible for her to continue working for Blammo Toys because she would be forced to work on Sundays. Ms. Watson’s religious beliefs do not allow her to work on Sunday’s, so she quit rather than work the new schedule. Ms. Watson is claiming that because her new schedule would require her to on Sundays that Blammo Toys has discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs. As such, she was forced to resign. According to the Supreme Court, the burden of proof is on Ms. Watson to prove constructive discharge. “An employer may defend against such a claim by showing both (1) that it had installed a readily accessible and effective policy for reporting and resolving complaints of sexual harassment, and (2) that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to avail herself of that employer-provided preventive or remedial apparatus” (Pennsylvania State Police vs....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document