The former employee, Pelvas, complained to the EEOC that the mandatory services are in conflict with his beliefs. One of the defenses that Townley used was the “undue hardship” if they accommodate religious beliefs of Pelvas, which would excuse him from attending the religious services. Townley lost in this argument because the court did not see undue hardship happening for the company if they not allow Pelvas to attend the services. For our situation, we can win in this case because our claim of undue hardship is valid, unlike the Townley’s. We needed this shift change because of business necessity.
For example, if you fire an employee for complaining that you denied a promotion because of race, you could lose a retaliation lawsuit even if a judge or jury finds that your promotion decision was not discriminatory. (Nolo, 2014). The at-will employee agreement dictates that the employer doesn't need a reason to keep an employee, but many justifiable reasons exist
Unquestionably, the decision to change the schedule of production staff was made by managers and directors with no direct knowledge of, and perhaps without consideration of, any employee’s religious affiliation or needs. Based on Walker Toy Company’s policies and procedures to comply with EEOC guidelines, a reasonable person may also agree that management felt this was not an important consideration, as they could have easily made accommodations in line with Title VII if Mrs. Miller had made her needs known. The reasonable person test is pervasive in case law as a factor in determining whether the employee’s resignation was reasonable. The case of Barrow v. New Orleans Steamship Ass’n (1994), established that certain factors are significant in determining constructive discharge: “(1) demotion; (2) reduction in salary; (3) reduction in job responsibilities; (4) reassignment to menial or degrading work; (5) reassignment to work under a younger supervisor; (6) badgering, harassment, or humiliation by the employer calculated to encourage the employee's resignation; or (7) offers of early retirement on terms that would make the employee worse off, whether accepted or not." This case supports my recommendation to litigate because Mrs. Miller was not subjected to any of these tactics, nor does she make any claims that any of these tactics were used toward her.
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.
Diane might believe this is a wrongful termination because she is unreliable due excessive sick children. However, there has been no documentation to the matter or performance reviews that mention that she has been counseled on absenteeism. Greg on the other hand could believe that because he cannot work weekends due to religious reasons or disparate treatment he was let go. Cost Club is downsizing therefore, there will be no weekends work to perform or reasonable accommodations to be made on either side. Greg will not win the case based in religion discrimination.
In his claim Mr. Harris has stated we discriminated by implementing a work schedule and forcing him to work on a religious holiday. The basis of his claim is religious discrimination. This claim puts him under a member of the protected class. Our company is bound by CRA to accommodate the work schedule for his religious practice. In this case it did not happen as Mr. Harris only resigned and never brought to the company attention that a conflict existed between the change in work schedule and his religious
The changes they made didn’t affect the business of their place of employment. They refused to change their appearance back to “normal” in order to keep their jobs. They both filed for unemployment compensation and were denied based on being terminated for misconduct. The difference between the two cases is that Apocada dyed her hair and Attired had a visible tattoo. Application to Client’s Facts: The facts in both cases could not be proven that personal appearance affected the sales of the business.
Greg has stated because of his religious belief, it is not feasible for him to work weekends. Greg may believe that he has a religious discrimination case but will be difficult to prove in court. Cost Club has gone the extra mile of the scope of the company to accommodate Greg and his beliefs. The company has made provisions for Greg not to work weekends unless it was necessary. Therefore, the company would win this case because it has provided and paid attention to the needs of
Potter, this had no effect on this former employee’s title, job status, pay or job responsibilities and conditions; just as our former employee had no change in job title, status, pay or job responsibilities and conditions. As reported by this case the Sixth Circuit Court found this does not constitute as discrimination in terms of Title VII and constructive discharge. In the case of Tepper v. Potter, client Mr. Tepper reported constructive discharge and religious discrimination due to him not receiving Saturdays off for religious observances. Mr. Tepper was previously accommodated for his day off but due to staff restraints and work demands his accommodation to be off every Saturday could not be fulfilled. This shows support that due to our constraints and high demand Title VII can not be applied in our case due to no changes in actual work conditions forcing our employee to
However, the School Board meeting during which Pat expressed unpopular opinion falls outside the public policy spectrum. Furthermore, the company’s personnel manual outlines procedures to deal with “unsatisfied employees.” Pat does not meet the requirement of unsatisfied employee either as there were no complaints about his performance. Pat signed an at-will employment with the employer, thus negating any provisions in the employee manual. If Pat had relocated based on the promise of the employer that he had a secured job for a period of time, he would have a case of breach of contract. This is not the case.