If the company’s intent was to get Mr. Doe or anyone on production staff to resign by changing the production staff’s hours, it is possible that the actions of the company could be considered a constructive discharge. In the case of Mr. Doe, if the court determines that the company discriminated against him using either of the “litmus” tests, there is a possibility the company will be required to pay additional compensation due to his termination being a constructive discharge. However, if the court decides that the suit does not meet the “litmus” test that it uses, then the
Even though Mr. Whitter resigned prior to the policy change taking effect, the potential for liability remains for back wages and possible punitive damages. According to Finnegan, (Finnegan, 1986), courts have developed two tests to determine when an employee has been constructively discharged by a discriminating employer. Using the majority view, an employee who resigns after being subjected to discrimination of a protected class is determined to have been constructively discharged if a “reasonable” person would have found the conditions intolerable. This is defined as the Reasonable Person Test. Conversely, under the minority view, the burden of proof lies more with the plaintiff showing not only intolerable conditions but that the employer created these conditions causing the resignation.
The following sections discuss three areas of interest that will allow the company to formulate a proper response: A) explanation of constructive discharge and how it is relevant to this case, B) summary of how religion is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and C) my recommendation for the company’s response to the claim. A) Constructive discharge. Constructive discharge is a legal concept that occurs when an employer makes work conditions intolerable, which results in forcing a reasonable employee to resign (US Legal, Inc., 2013). Intolerable work conditions can include discrimination and/or harassment based on religion, race, color, ethnicity, or gender, as outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Laws.com, 2013). Constructive discharge is designed to prevent employers from forcing employees to quit by conducting clandestine unethical behavior that would otherwise be illegal if performed in an obvious manner.
Lei may also want to compare the past performance with the outdated handbook to determine how the missed opportunity was and what benefits or impact the new handbook will have on the employees going forward which would result into a written warning for any violation. The fourth and final step of the process is to take corrective action against all those involved in the violation that occurred. As far as the hours paid that were not worked, the corrective action that could be taken is to have the employee deduct the hours
Tell employees salary increases must cease to finance the collective bargaining agreement. Explain current employee benefits to the LPNs, comparing them to the union promises. Threaten to close the facility due to the union campaign. Assist in the circulation of antiunion petitions. Counter union exaggerated claims on flyers.
How might employers ensure that their performance evaluation process is nondiscriminatory? What might employers do to help encourage fairness in performance evaluation? Porter seeks accommodation for a religious practice unique to the Heavenly Masters religion. Porter’s employer has never heard of this religion. In order to determine whether Porter’s demand for accommodation is truly based on religion, what must the employer do?
("Trans World," 2007) Looking to another case in Weathers vs FedEx the decision demonstrates an employee need not use the word “accommodate” or “accommodation” to make a protected request for accommodation to which the employer must respond. Lastly, in reviewing Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook if our former employee did offer us an alternative and our company rejected it then we can cite this case. The case is similar to our current situation except the employee offered an alternative to the employer and the employer rejected it. Legal Recommendation to Avoid Constructive Discharge cases and legal issues around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
“Conducts which violates the NLRA are: “threatening employees with loss of jobs or benefits if they join or vote for a union or engage in protected activity; threatening to close plants if employees chose union representation; questioning employees about their union sympathies or activities in circumstances that tend to interfere” (Azira, 2008). “Union membership has steadily declined while worker job security and compensation has also declined” (Azira, 2008). “The NLRA is an ideal law to protect workers for large manufacturers where unions could represent a great numbers of workers at varying levels in the company” (Azria, 2008). Also many Americans consider themselves as part of the middle class and union membership may be viewed as part of the lower or working-class. Employers often time try to come in between the workers and the union to make the workers not want to partake in the activities of a union.
Anitra Martin Legal risk and opportunity in employment September 29, 2009 Law/531 Legal encounter 1: Newcorp has the right under the common law of employee termination at will. This is a contract of employment for other than a definite term is terminable at will by either party. This common law employer may dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause or even for cause morally wrong without being guilty of legal wrong. The only way that pat can prove that they let him go unjustly he would have to prove that they showed discrimination towards him based on race, sex, religion, or age. Legal encounter 2: Newcorp has a liability of sexual harassment because of the fact that Paula ended their relationship and
In this case the court ruled that changing an employee’s work hours does not constitute constructive discharge under Title VII. In this case we have to determine if the employee ever asked us for a schedule accommodation. The opinion of the court may differ from this case if our employee had brought this concern to our attention and we did not offer an accommodation. Looking further into Title VII an employer may be guilty of discriminating against religious beliefs or practices unless a reasonable accommodation could be reached without undue hardship on our business. If the employee were to pursue a prima facie case they would have to prove three things to win in court: they have a bona fide religious belief that is in conflict