Tinker Toys Memo To: Mr. Tinker CEO of Tinker Toys From: cc: Western Governors University Date: Re: Constructive Discharge Claim Recently here at Tinker Toy we have been notified by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of a claim of “Constructive Discharge” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, brought on by a previous employee named Susie Qu. I have done some research and have summarized my findings and outlined how I recommend Tinker Toy should respond. First let me define and explain how constructive discharge is relevant in this claim. According to Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or nationality is strictly prohibited. What Title VII more specifically states is that discrimination based on religion or taking action against an employee who does not comply with a job requirement that conflicts with the his/her religious beliefs is also prohibited.
In years past, the production team has only worked Monday through Friday and were not required to work weekends. In this new rotation there will be some days that fall on a religious holy day, (Sunday in this case) and each production worker is required to work this new rotation, including Sundays. Mr. Bowers voluntarily terminated his position before this new policy was implemented. Following his voluntary termination, Mr. Bowers is now claiming a constructive discharge. This is an element of Title VII to help employees protect themselves against termination due to discrimination A constructive discharge is defined as when the working conditions for the employee
Baker was also unable to prove a loss in sales during the time Natalie Attired was employed. The only information Baker was able to provide was the request of two patrons to move out of Attired’s section as they were offended by her tattoos. Issue/Question Presented: Is Natalie Attired’s refusal to remove her tattoo as instructed by her employer considered misconduct as defined by New Mexico Statute § 51-1-7? Brief Answer: No. Attired’s refusal to remove her tattoo does not constitute
Assignment 3: Constitutional Rights Korb v. Raytheon, 707 F.Supp. 63 (DMass. 1989) Facts, Issues, & Rule Lawrence Korb, (plaintiff) a Pennsylvania resident, originally brought this suit against the Raytheon Corporation, (defendant) a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. The complaint alleged, in the Middle-sex Superior Court, that Mr. Korb's employment by Raytheon was terminated wrongfully because of the exercise by plaintiff of his right of free speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article XVI of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (Korb v. Raytheon, 1989). “Mr.
Because of his religious beliefs the employee could not be accommodates and resulted of him giving his resignation. The former employee has not been required work on Saturday or Sunday but due to our increase in production all employees must now work 12 hour shift with four days on and four days off. This schedule conflicted with his religious holy day. B. Title VII Title VII, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was created to protect the rights of citizens from forms of discrimination due to race, color of skin, sex, or nationality or religion.
This is not a current issue, but also the same comment from his old manager. Paul seems don’t have the general view of the organization, but only cares himself. What even worse is that any feedback, negative or positive, from his boss can’t change his behavior. He suddenly disappeared for four months when he had discrepancy with his boss even when he is still on the project. All these show he is self-interested, and not regarding himself as a member of a organization.
Pugh v. Locke case Name: Institution: Pugh v. Locke case The Pugh v. Locke case is a delicate case that focuses on findings based on the Alabama board of corrections (Gerald, 1978). The complaint in Pugh v. Locke was filled by one of the inmates of G. K. Fountain Correctional Center on February 26, 1974 (Robbins & Michael, 1977). It is clear that, in these actions, the plaintiffs hunt for injunctive relief pursuant for denial of their eighth and fourteenth amendment rights. Therefore, this article will list problematic issues for prisons in the case and their solutions. This paper will also compare these problems with the current state of prisons.
GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT No. 496 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 381 U.S. 479; 85 S. Ct. 1678; 14 L. Ed. 2d 510; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2282 March 29, 1965, Argued June 7, 1965, Decided CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants, a director of medical clinic and a doctor, challenged a decision from the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, which convicted them of violating a state law that prohibited the dispensing or use of birth control devices to or by married couples. | OVERVIEW: Defendants appealed from their convictions under Conn. Gen. Stat.
To: Chief Executive Officer From: Bruno Mars, Elementary Division Manager As you are aware we have had a claim filed against our company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our former employee is stating that our new work schedules of four days on and four days off is discriminatory because it requires employees to work on religious holy days and therefore is constructive discharge. I want to first discuss what constructive discharge actually is and why it is relevant to this situation. Constructive discharge occurs when an employer’s actions make the workplace so unacceptable that any reasonable employee would have found it necessary to quit if they were facing the same scenario. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
v. Falwell. This case also became known as “The People vs. Larry Flint”. The Reverend Jerry Falwell brought a suit against Hustler Magazine and it’s owner Larry Flint for publishing an ad that depicted him as “having his first time, in an outhouse with his mother”(Bloomberg Law, n.d.). His basis was invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After being heard by the Fourth Circuit Court, the case was decided in favor of Reverend Falwell.