JDT2 Task 1
toy company interoffice memorandum to: Ceo of toy company from: elementary division manager subject: review of constructive discharge allegations date: May 1, 2014 cc: toy company attorney
A. Constructive Discharge as a Legal Concept
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. When an employer engages in practices that create a hostile work environment for any of these protected groups, making conditions so intolerable that an employee feels compelled to resign, it is known as constructive discharge Former employee Andy Anderson now alleges that our company engaged in religious discrimination when our production schedule changes went into effect at the first of the year. The changes required all production employees to occasionally work on a religious holy day, and Mr. Anderson has submitted a constructive discharge claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to an article in the University of Chicago Law Review, courts generally apply two tests when deciding if constructive discharge has occurred. The first is the reasonable person test, meaning that the working conditions are so intolerable that a reasonable person would conclude that resigning is the only recourse. The second is the specific intent test. The plaintiff must show that the employer “created those conditions with the specific intent to cause the employee to resign” (Finnegan, 1986). Mr. Anderson’s case is unlikely to pass either test. According to the production manager, no other employees have resigned or come forward with complaints about the new schedule. Also, the new schedule was implemented solely as a response to increased production demand. It was enforced across the board among all production staff. Meeting minutes and administrative emails prior to the scheduling change do not indicate any intent to make Mr. Anderson or any
A. Constructive Discharge as a Legal Concept
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. When an employer engages in practices that create a hostile work environment for any of these protected groups, making conditions so intolerable that an employee feels compelled to resign, it is known as constructive discharge Former employee Andy Anderson now alleges that our company engaged in religious discrimination when our production schedule changes went into effect at the first of the year. The changes required all production employees to occasionally work on a religious holy day, and Mr. Anderson has submitted a constructive discharge claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to an article in the University of Chicago Law Review, courts generally apply two tests when deciding if constructive discharge has occurred. The first is the reasonable person test, meaning that the working conditions are so intolerable that a reasonable person would conclude that resigning is the only recourse. The second is the specific intent test. The plaintiff must show that the employer “created those conditions with the specific intent to cause the employee to resign” (Finnegan, 1986). Mr. Anderson’s case is unlikely to pass either test. According to the production manager, no other employees have resigned or come forward with complaints about the new schedule. Also, the new schedule was implemented solely as a response to increased production demand. It was enforced across the board among all production staff. Meeting minutes and administrative emails prior to the scheduling change do not indicate any intent to make Mr. Anderson or any
References: Beranbaum, J.A. (2008). Reconstructing constructive discharge in second circuit. Retrieved 5/23/2014 from http://www.bestlawyers.com/Downloads/Articles/2208_1.pdf Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 7, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq (1964). Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm Finnegan, S. (1986). Constructive discharge under title VII and the ADEA. The University of Chicago Law Review. Chicago: Spring, 53 (2), 561-580 Lieberman, A. (2012). Mediation success: Workplace conflict is best settled outside the courtroom. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOzGmxI4pW4&feature=youtu.be Meckes, J. (1996). Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.: California Supreme Court provides employers with a more favorable constructive discharge standard. Golden Gate University Law Review. 26 (3). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol26/iss3/7 Schlueter, T. E., & Rollinson, T.N. (2012) Chicago police clerk’s religious bias claim fails. Society For Human Resource Management. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/legalissues/federalresources/pages/religious-bias-claim-fails.aspx U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Religious discrimination & reasonable accommodation. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm