MEMORANDUM Date: 11/20/2013 Subject: Claim against company under Title VII To: CEO From: At the beginning of the year our company changed its policy for production staff. They are required to work four days on and four days off. This is a required rotating shift. Due to recent policy changes in staffing a claim of constructive discharge has been filed against the company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The former employee believes that the change in policy has forced him to quit because he has to work on a religious holy day.
TO: William Alexander, CEO FROM: , Elementary Division Manager DATE: July 22, 2014 SUBJECT: Constructive Discharge Claim of Mr. Paul Scott As per your recommendation, I have conducted the initial research regarding the alleged Title VII claim for constructive discharge, initiated by Mr. Paul Scott. A former production employee, Mr. Scott is alleging that during the recent changes in the company’s work schedule policy, he is being discriminated due to being required to work during religious holy days. Historically the production team has worked a traditional work week, but with the new policy change the work week is 12 hour shifts on a 4 day rotation. This change only affects the production staff, office staff remains on a traditional schedule. A.
This is a formal notice that it has been brought to my attention that a former employee has filed a lawsuit against our organization under the section Constructive Discharge of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The charges state that the company requires the employee to work on a religious holiday due to a production staff work schedule policy change. The new schedule requires that employees work 12 hour shifts with four days at work and four days off. The rotating shift can start any day of the week. The employee believed that the working condition due to the scheduling changes of the company was intolerable and religiously discriminatory to an extent that forced him to resign.
JDT2 Task 1 TO: CEO FROM: Jennifer Johnson DATE: 1/27/14 SUBJECT: Constructive Discharge Claim by Former Employee At the beginning of 2014, a new policy was implemented that required shift workers to work 4 – 12 hour days and then be off 4 days. With the new policy, the employee would work the 4-12 hour days required regardless of whether the day fell on a holiday or religious day. The employee in question quit due to being forced to work on a religious holy day. The employee is stating that the new schedule implemented by XYZ Toys made it impossible for her to continue working because she would have to work on Sundays. Due to her religious beliefs, the employee felt she was discriminated against and, therefore, was forced to resign.
To: Chief Executive Officer SUBJECT: Constructive Discharge Claim Per your request, I have completed an initial research on the former employee claim for constructive discharge against our Company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He bases his suit on religious discrimination due to the new production schedule that took effect the beginning of the year. In his opinion, the new production schedule requires employees to work on holy days thereby, discriminating against employees whose religious practice does not allow them to work on these particular days. The employee alleges that enforcement of the new policy forced him to resign his position before the effective date of the new schedule. Religious discrimination involves
EMPLOYMENT AT WILL DOCTRINE A COO’s Ethical Decisions Jeanne M. Catalano Strayer University Authors Note This paper was prepared for Leg 500 Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance Taught by Professor Professor A. Weekley Employment at Will Doctrine: A COO’s Tough Decisions Employment at Will is a double edged doctrine that allows both employees and employers to terminate the working relationship. The United States is the only country that recognizes employment at will and basically gives employers reason to “fire employees for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, pg. 46). Over the years there have arisen many exceptions to the Employment at Will doctrine such as public policy, wrongful termination,
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
In _____, workers have been fired for refusing to quit smoking, for living with someone without being married, drinking a competitor’s product, motorcycling, and other legal activities outside of work. • constructive discharge • lifestyle discrimination • invasion of privacy • defamation 21. Organizations periodically turn to _________ to meet demands for talent brought about by business growth and a desire for fresh ideas, or to replace employees who leave. • entry-level employees • their subsidiaries • outside labor markets • former employees To download the complete answer check HRM 531 Week 6 Complete 22. This made extensive changes to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 that governs employer-sponsored, qualified (for tax deferral) retirement-benefit plans.
Concord Bookshop Paper Monica Wilson HCS/587 January 14, 2013 Dr. Sonnia Oliva Concord Bookshop Paper I would like to present the caase of a Concord area bookshop where organizational change goes wrong on many levels for a number of the stakeholders; i.e., store employees and some members of management. Spector (2010) points out that the board of the 64 year old institution decided to hire a new general manager, in effect causing de facto demotions. The workers wanted to meet with the owners to discuss the issues but the owners declined. They opted instead to move forward with their planned change, minus any employee input. The proposed change caused a number of employees to resign and many in the community to voice their outrage.
Employment Law LASW-310 November24, 2013 Employment Law 12. A reader sent the following story to a newspaper question and answer forum: I was fired recently by my employer, an architecture firm, immediately after serving for one month on a federal grand jury. From the moment I informed my boss … I was harassed … and told I was not putting the company first. I was told to get out of my jury service, “or else.” … I was fired exactly one week after my service ended. Was the dismissal of this at-will employee lawful?