Memorandum To: John Doe, Toy Company CEO From: Date: Re: Constructive Discharge Claim Confidential Constructive Discharge Claim A former employee of Toy Company has filed a lawsuit claiming constructive discharge after a work schedule policy change. The employee claims that the new work schedule requires employees to work on a religious holy day. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines constructive discharge as forcing an employee to resign by making the working environment so intolerable a reasonable person would not be able to stay (www.eeoc.gov). Based solely on the information I have been provided, this employee does not have a valid claim. The first reason being, the employee must inform the appropriate
The siblings, and Echardt were asked to remove the armbands; consequences for failing to do so were suspension until after New Year’s Day, and confiscation of the armbands. Even knowing the consequences the brother and sister team did not care, nor did Christopher, they wore the black bands anyway and were eventually sent home. They appealed to the district court arguing their rights were being violated, but ended up losing the case because the district court decided that the action of the school was reasonable. Unhappy with the results the Tinker siblings appealed to the Supreme Court. Legal concepts- The two amendments in question are (the right to freedom of speech granted by) the First Amendment, and the (right to be equally protected under the law given to us by) the Fourteenth Amendment.
One employee was displeased with the new requirement to work on a holy day, has filed a case claiming constructive discharge. In this case, the toy company employee feels that (s)he was discriminated against based on religion by being forced to work on his/ her religious day. In 2004, the US Supreme Court set the foundation for constructive discharge in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders. According to the US Equal Employment Commission, constructive discharge is “forcing an employee to resign by making the work environment so intolerable a reasonable person would not be able to stay.” Additionally, the EEO takes the position that “an employer is liable for constructive discharge when it imposes intolerable working conditions in violation of Title VII when those conditions foreseeably would compel a reasonable employee to quit, whether or not the employer specifically intended to force the victim's resignation.” Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2009 establishes that the former employee must show prima facie evidence that discrimination occurred. This includes proving that a genuine religious belief conflicts with his/ her duties, the (s)he informed the employer, and that
Explain. [Bannister v. Bemis Co. , 556 F.3d 882 (8th Cir.2009)] Case brief: Bemis Co, breached the covenant not to compete, the breach was material. Bannister could not accept employment with a Bemis competitor, but Bemis was to pay Bannister his salary. There was no term for a partial release. Bemis “released” Bannister to seek employment with one exception—Mondi Packaging.
Issue: Did Mrs. Mitchell’s action constitute misconduct so as to disqualify her from unemployment compensation benefits under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A 1953? Rules of Law: The term “misconduct” is not defined in Unemployment Compensation Law. New Mexico adopted Wisconsin’s 249, 569-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) term for “misconduct”. The definition states: Misconduct is limited to conduct evoking such willful or wanton behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer.
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
Memorandum To: John Doe: CEO CC: Legal Department From: Elementary Division Manager Date: [ 4/27/2014 ] Re: EMPLOYEE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE CASE Issue: We have received notice from the company attorney stating the plaintiff, a former employee, has filed a case against the company, The Toy Box, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on the grounds of constructive discharge based on conflicting scheduling between work and religion. Despite the plaintiff’s decision to voluntarily remove himself from the company, The Toy Box could be found legally responsible for all lost wages to the plaintiff. The company may also be legally liable to compensate for the plaintiff’s pain and suffering as
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 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.
1. Do you believe Oiler’s employee rights were violated? Explain your position. Peter Oiler’s being from his job by the Winn-Dixie Corporation was an outright and blatant violation of his employee rights. No one person or company and or organization should be allowed to discriminate against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation choice and they are most certainly not allowed to discriminate against an employee due to the way he/she decides to dress.