Candy Land Toy Company Legal Department
(NAME), Human Resources
Mr. David Madison: Constructive Discharge Lawsuit
Demand for our products has grown, and to meet that demand we have had to change the production work schedules. Mr. Madison did resign after the schedule change took effect, and after leaving filed a lawsuit calling for constructive discharge and contends it was based on religious discrimination.
According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, constructive discharge:
Work conditions must be deemed intolerable to the reasonable person •
That said conditions were created with specific intent to force an employee to quit
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) speaks about discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs.
Disparate Treatment – A person is held to a different standard than other employees centered exclusively on their association to a particular religious belief.
Failure to accommodate – In order to honor his or her religious beliefs the employee must requests a special accommodation. If Mr. Madison:
Honestly held a religious belief
Informed us of that belief
Informed us of conflicts between his work schedule and his religious beliefs •
Requested special accommodations
Exhausted all administrative avenues
Failed make a good faith effort to accommodate his religious beliefs •
Gave adverse reviews
Disciplined Mr. Madison because his religious belief’s interfered with his work
Then we are liable to settle a constructive discharge lawsuit.
Constructive Discharge – Employer fails to provide accommodations to a reasonable request resulting in the employee quitting. The employee must prove that work conditions were unbearable and that continued employment was not an option (Shaker).
Candy Land Toy Company Policy #: HR154 covers a couple different options when trying to meet special accommodation requests for religious holy days. 1) Transfer to another available position within the company, and 2) the ability to switch shifts with an equally qualified employee who performs the same duties. This policy is covered in the employee handbook.
Subsequently in reviewing Mr. Madison’s claim, I find:
He has a strong religious belief
He asked for special accommodations
He was not experienced for open positions
He failed to find a qualified employee to switch shifts
In examination of the Company’s actions, I find:
Company product demand was up
24/7 coverage was necessary to sustain the demand
The increase in demand dictated a need for a new work schedule •
No open positions available
The company exhausted all administrative remedies at the time of the special accommodation request
In Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders activities leading to a constructive discharge lawsuit cannot come from the actions of the employer (Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 2004). Our actions were realistic and required for continual sustainment of company progression.
Every practical effort was made to meet the special accommodations request from Mr. Madison. All other employees accommodated both their religious and employment responsibilities (Finnegan, 1986).
I recommend fighting this claim; all my supporting documentation is to be forwarded to your office within three business days.
Supportive Case Study
Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company (Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2003) - Allstate inacted a policy requiring the office to continue to be open on Friday evenings and Saturday mornings. The Goldmeiers were Orthodox Jews and advised Allstate that this change would intrude upon their holy day observation. There was no settlement reached between them; the Goldmeiers found different jobs prior to the new policy being enacted. After leaving Allstate, they filed a lawsuit in which they blame...
Cited: Dinonysius RICHARDSON, Albert E. Flournoy, Thaddeus Dias, Eugene Fleming, Jr., and Edward Hunt, Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, 572 F.2d 89 (United States Court of Appeals, third Circuit February 17, 1978).
Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company, 01-3888 (United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuite March 25, 2003).
Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 US 129 (Supreme Court of the United States March 2004).
Finnegan, S. (1986). Constructive Discharge Under Title VII and the ADEA. Chicago.
Shaker, J. (. (n.d.). Religious Diversity Accommodation. (Retrieved from RS&C:) Retrieved from http://www.ryanswansonlaw.com/Documents/Articles/Religious_Diversity_Accommodation.pdf
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). (n.d.).
Please join StudyMode to read the full document