The former employee believes that the change in policy has forced him to quit because he has to work on a religious holy day. Constructive discharge as legal concept Nolo’s Plain-English law dictionary describes constructive discharge as an employee quits because the working conditions are so intolerable that any reasonable
Due to her religious beliefs, the employee felt she was discriminated against and, therefore, was forced to resign. The employee feels that she should receive unemployment claiming constructive discharge. According to Wikipedia.com (2014), “Constructive discharge occurs when an employee resigns because their employer’s behavior has become so intolerable or heinous or made life so difficult that the employee has no choice but to resign.” The question at hand is whether or not the employee can support that she was forced to work under “intolerable conditions”. If the employee made XYZ Toys aware of her religious beliefs and XYZ was not able to accommodate, this may be grounds for constructive discharge. B.
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
Managing Operations Courtney Nelson Human Resources: Western Governor’s University A. Constructive Discharge Under the doctrine of Title VII in the Civil Rights Law, Constructive Discharge is when the employer creates working conditions that are so intolerable, that the employee would be compelled to resign (Saxe, I., 1987). The majority of courts who withhold Constructive Discharge as a reasonable form of discrimination against an employee, only require that the plaintiff prove that the employer deliberately created working conditions that were so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel that it was necessary to resign (Saxe, I., 1987). Constructive Discharge is relevant in the scenario of the employee quitting after
A strike is a concerted effort by a group of workers to withhold their labor from their employer for the purpose of effecting favorable changes in wages or working conditions, or both, or for winning employer recognition of labor union representation. Strikes can take different forms: a primary strike is a stoppage aimed at the direct employer; a sympathy strike occurs when employees refuse to work in "sympathy" with others directly involved in a dispute; and a sit-down strike happens when workers stop work and decline to leave the employer's premises in order to prevent the hiring of replacements. A wildcat strike is one that occurs without formal union authorization, and a general strike is an effort to stimulate a generalized work stoppage and has political overtones. All of the above have been common in the United States, with the exception of the politicized general strike, a technique that is
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
RE: Mr. John Doe’s Willful Termination on December 12, 2011 Executive Summary Based on the facts of the case, I believe we are not liable in the discrimination suit brought by Mr. Doe. Constructive Discharge Constructive discharge is defined as “if an employer's discriminatory acts result in working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to resign.” (Finnegan, 1986) Courts generally follow one of two “litmus” tests to determine if a person who willfully terminated their employment was constructively discharged and should receive compensation as a result of the termination. In the majority view, “an employee who resigns after being subjected to unlawful discrimination is said to have been constructively discharged if a reasonable person would have found the discriminatory conditions to be intolerable.” (Finnegan, 1986) The minority view is that the complainant “must show not only that conditions were intolerable, but also that the employer created those conditions with the specific intent of forcing them to resign.” (Finnegan, 1986) Mr. Doe is a member if the production staff. The company changed the production staff’s working hours to a rolling 12 hour shift four days a week that could occur on any day of the week. 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.
If the employee performance does not improve to a satisfactory level within the specified period of time, termination will follow. (Schumacher, 2008 p.13) Pat contends, in the scenario, that he did sign a statement of understanding regarding NewCorp’s at will employment policy. However, Pat believes that the aforementioned clause in the personnel manual should render his termination invalid. As well, Pat recently became vocal at a school board meeting on a very unpopular issue. He contends that, as a result, senior management at NewCorp became noticeably unfriendly and that this played an integral part in the decision to terminate his
Our relationship is and will be always one of voluntary employment “at will” (Halbert, 2012, pp. 50-51). I would then have the HR representative show her in the handbook where we, as her employer, reserve the right to terminate any employee due to tardiness; furthermore, the HR representative will explain to her that though she thinks being terminated from our company is “unfair”, that in a court of law it will not be deemed as “wrongful termination” unless our termination of her employment is unlawful. Since Tennessee is an “employment-at-will” state, she has no valid “wrongful termination” claim. Additionally, we will explain that her discharge is not in retaliation for her refusal to violate public policy or for reporting such; Finally, we will explain that
As an example, a signed two-year contract that states an employee can be fired during the contract only for committing a crime, then the employee is not an at-will employee. If the employee is fired for any reason not specified in the contract, the employee will have a legal claim against the employer for breach of contract. Aside from a written contract, the only way an employer can not fire an employee at will is if there were verbal exchanges stating “as long as you do a good job, you’ll have a job” or “we will only fire those unable to meet our standards”, and the employee is able to prove those statements were made. Just about every employer is subject to federal and state laws prohibiting job discrimination, therefore an employee cannot be fired because of race, religion, or gender, discrimination or harassment. An employee also can not be fired “at will” for taking family and medical leave, serving in the military, voting, or jury duty.