Toy Company Task 2

1076 Words5 Pages
Toy Company | To: | CEO | From: | Stacy Kuhn | CC: | | Date: | 9/12/2011 | Re: | RJDT Task 1 | Task A:Task B:Task C 1:Task C 2:Task C 3: | Employee A is filing a claim against our company under constructive discharge as related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The instigating factor of the case is the new work schedule policy that is mandated for all production staff. The associate believes their claim fits constructive discharge guidelines because the new policy requires him/her to work on a particular religious holiday, thus feeling that he/she is being discriminated against and that it was necessary for him/her to quit his/her position.Title VII deems it unlawful employment practice “to limit, segregate, or classify…show more content…
The new schedule was based loosely on seniority, but could change daily based on workload. Taylor informed his supervisor that he was leaving for church service and was warned that he would be terminated; Taylor left and was terminated the next day. In spite of Arlington accommodating Taylor’s schedule request for two years, the court ruled that the schedule change in 1987 should have been treated like a new instance and “all that was in place was an ad hoc arrangement contemplating that the inevitable collision between Taylor's religious beliefs and the company's new work schedule would be dealt with when it arose. […] Once the new schedule was implemented, the company should have made a reasonable attempt to accommodate his sincere religious needs” (Plaintiff-appellant v. Arlington Transit Mix, Inc., 1991).With the implementation of a new schedule policy, we should review what accommodations our company is willing to make due to the increased chance that associates may encounter instances that they need time off in order to observe religious beliefs. In 1977, the Supreme…show more content…
The case was prompted by Philbrook believing that he should be permitted to use personal time to cover his additional leave, thus being paid for six days of absence due to religious beliefs. The case states, “but if the accommodation offered by the employer does not completely resolve the employee's conflict, I would hold that the employer remains under an obligation to consider whatever reasonable proposals the employee may submit” (Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook, 1986). In regards to our current suit, our company offered no provision to associates for time off needed due to religious beliefs. Therefore Employee A may have a case that can hold in court. I believe by reviewing our policy and providing suggestions to assist with religious accommodations, we can avoid this issue in the future. We can recommend that associates work with each other to trade shifts if necessary to accommodate time off for religious beliefs. We can also provide a leave of absence policy that specifically outlines approval for a set amount of time off for leave of absence due to religious beliefs. Furthermore, we can also

More about Toy Company Task 2

Open Document