Civil Right Act of 1964 - Research Paper Example

?Civil Right Act of 1964 Affiliation with more information about affiliation, research grants, conflict of interest and how to contact Memorandum To: Mr. Paul Samuels, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) From: Michael Sanders, Legal Manager Date: March 5, 2011 Re: Implications of Civil Rights Act, 1964. Dear Mr. Samuels, It is first of all necessary to seek out a working knowledge of the term ‘constructive discharge. A Constructive discharge happens when an employee’s working environment is so adverse that he is forced to resign and leave the job. According to the UK employment laws, The Employment Rights Act of 1996 defines constructive discharge as an act of termination of the working contract by an employee due to the unfair conduct of the employer which the employee equates to constructively dismissing from employment.” The party needs to file a claim for constructive discharge but the law of constructive discharge requires the claims to be made due to any of the three reasons. 1. The first reason is the employer changing the terms of employment contract like the cases of deliberate cuts in payment, status or working hours 2. The second ground of a constructive discharge claim requires the breaching of contract by the employer in the form of bullying or ignoring complaints. 3. The third ground is the breaching of such rules which results to inequitable industrial practice. According to the constructive discharge act an individual is a prospective claimant of constructive discharge if the individual gives notice to the employer due to the reason of insufferable stressful and unpleasant work situation or due to the inequitable treatment met to the individual by the superiors or a co worker. When an employee resigns under such circumstances it is not considered by the law as a free will resignation but it is considered that the employer forcibly coerced the employee into resigning from the job. Here the employee files a case for constructive discharge because there is disagreement and clash of opinions. The conclusion that is reached by the erstwhile employee and complainant is that he/she has been forced to work on religious holy days, ans the working days have changed from former 5 day week to seven day week that working under this kind of environment is a type of harassment meted out by the company’s owners. According to the UK Equal Pay act of 1970 the law states that it is unlawful if discrimination in an organization occurs on the basis of remuneration or benefits that are provided to men and women employees. The act of Equal Pay of 1970 comes under the Act of Equal Opportunities Mr CEO Sir, in this case scenario it is seen that during third week as the elementary division manager, the company attorney notifies that a former employee has filed a case against the company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, constructive discharge, after changes have been instituted in the work schedule. The employee, who quit after the policy change took effect, is alleging that the enforcement of the company’s new policy on shift work is discriminatory because the policy requires employees to work on a religious holy day. In the past, production employees worked Monday through Friday. As a result of company growth, the production schedule was changed at the beginning of the New Year, requiring employees to work 12-hour shifts with four days at work and then after working four days is given our days off. Now, the four work days can occur any day of the week, Mondays through Sundays. The entire production staff is required to work this rotating shift. However, office staff members, work between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays. This changed work schedule does not meet the approval of the said complainant as now he/she would even have to work on Sundays if part of 4 day working schedule. She claims this new policy as discriminatory and intending to place curbs or restrictions on employee holiday on a Sunday. . “The broad underlying purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to eliminate the pervasive discrimination against racial minorities that had long existed in American society.” (Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2011). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit under reigning laws. Also the proviso’s of Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group and also “An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.” It is believed that in this case, the allowance for religious practice as advocated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 could be invoked. The laws believes that no discrimination should be shown to employees because of association in place of worship followed by a particular racial, ethnic or religious group. In the event that such kind of discrimination is shown it would be in violation of the precepts of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the employers shall have to bear the brunt and responsibility of the violation. In this particular case scenario, by making working on Sundays mandatory, the management has offended sentiments of certain persons who keep this day for holy religious duties and obligations. Thus, due to the conflict between work and religious beliefs, the complainant was forced to resign and bring action against the company and its management on the grounds of constructive discharge under the CRA 1964. The judgement in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth clarified the high standards of liability employers face in the event of harassment, and placed due importance on company complaint policies The main aspect that needs to be considered in this case is whether the act of changing employment hours and days of work is not ultra vires the working rules of the company and whether there were formal laws and byelaws that could permit such changes incorporated in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of this Company. If the Company rules do not provide for such changes, than these changes are ultra vires and not binding on the work force. In the case of a similar case- Nationwide Building Society v Benn and others, “The claimants considered that Nationwide had altered their terms and conditions of employment to their detriment after the transfer. The claimants' view was that their job roles and responsibilities were downgraded when they were assimilated into Nationwide roles.” (Case of the week: Nationwide Building Society v Benn and others, 2010). “In yet another case involving constrictive dismissal, a female employee was dismissed without enforcement of the 6 months notice period and she was also not paid during that period.” (Recovery of earnings in constructive dismissals, 2009). The Employment Appellate Tribunal (EAT) found that Ms Bell was entitled to a six-month contractual notice period, and that she had been dismissed without notice. The tribunal made an award of six months' pay, less credit for money actually paid in the first week of the notice period. “As all HR professionals know, one answer is: when it's a constructive dismissal - that is, when a serious breach of contract by the employer caused it. Another answer, which might be given by an employee, is: 'When I didn't mean it. I just said it in the heat of the moment.' However, a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision, Proctor v Glycosynth Limited (EAT/0811/04), illustrates that it is not whether the employee meant it or not that counts.” (Schofield, 2005). Mr. CEO Sir, it is evident in this case that the management should be clear about its stand that the necessity for wanting all the employees to work on 4 day basis with 4 days leave after that. There is no deliberate necessity or need for the management to interfere with religious sentiments by needing the staff to work on holidays and this has been necessitated, as explained earlier due to the work pressures and the need to work for the sustained growth and prosperity of the company. Besides, the company should argue that it is well within the ambit of administrative powers and privileges to institute any kind of changes that the top management thinks fit under changing circumstances. The question of any religious bias or discrimination cannot be judged in this particular case because the changes have not been institutionalized based on religious discrimination and till now, no charges of any religious bias has been raised against the company or its management. The present status of the company and the growth process the company is undergoing has made it necessary and imperative to institute changes in the working hours and working days. This does not have any mala fide religious connotations or otherwise and is based on just working conveniences. As a result of company growth, the production schedule has been changed at the beginning of the New Year, requiring employees to work 12-hour shifts with four days at work and then four days off. As a matter of work, through internal arrangements with co workers, the aggrieved worker could have adjusted his working days in such a manner that would not have clashed with his religious duties and holy days. Yet rather than seeking and choosing a positive and constructive solution, he chose to provide public vent to his grievance, create an ugly scene and resign from the company. After leaving the company, he has sought to question the authenticity and rationale of the genuine common good changes instituted by the company management through a lawsuit challenging the validity of these changes under the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 1964. Besides, he has also termed his resignation from the services of the company on grounds of new policy on shift work as expression of intolerance against the prevailing discriminatory system because the policy requires employees to work on a religious holy day He has brought up the cause of constructive discharge, or in other words, conditions arising due to such adverse conditions of working such that no sane person would be able to continue working in such an establishment. But the strangest aspect is that only he has brought up action in a work force of 40 employees and nobody else has offered him any support or enthusiasm in this regard. Thus, in the absence of any complaints of constructive discharge from any other quarters, his claims seem to be unsubstantiated and not based on tenable premises. Neither has he been forced to resign from his post nor was any kind of pressure used on him to quit his job. Neither did any of his other colleagues doing the same kind of job he has been doing raise a claim for constructive discharge. Under such circumstances, the management wishes to submit that it was not religious incentives or social bearing that constrained it to changes its working pattern but only due to work pressures from increased growth and development of the company, of which this complainant has been an active co worker also. This company’s management is fully aware of its social duties and responsibilities and would not do anything that would hurt religious sentiments of its staff members, or constituents of its work force. Thus, the management wishes to seek an out-of-court compromise with this complaint. Finally, Mr. CEO Sir, Title VII of the CRA 1964 deals in discrimination with regard to race, gender, sexual preferences, age, creed and colour, among others. It is necessary that companies have clear cut policies regarding these issues down to its barest minimum details to avoid litigation of this kind. A Working Code of ethical and legal practices centering on Title VII of the CRA could be a working paper for employers which seek to identify and address areas of conflict between employers and employees and seek reconciliation and remedial actions to minimize the ill effects of implementing changes. Employees and members of the work forces need to impress about their own benefits and career growth in terms of higher earnings and a greater benefits accruing due to growth and prosperity of the business Hope the above memo would clarify the issue regarding employee who had resigned and brought lawsuit against the company. Thanking you, Sincerely, Michael Sanders Legal Manager Reference List Case of the week: Nationwide Building Society v Benn and others, (2010). Personnel today. Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/08/24/56408/case-of-the-week-nationwide-building-society-v-benn-and.html Civil Rights Act of 1964, (2011). Answers. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-rights-act-of-1964 Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws, (2009). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html Recovery of earnings in constructive dismissals, (2009). Personnel today. Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/02/12/49390/recovery-of-earnings-in-constructive-dismissals.html Sara, K. (2000). NOTE: Applying the Ellerth Defense to Constructive Discharge: An Affirmative Answer. Lexis Nexis. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=85+Iowa+L.+Rev.+1035&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=01e1d6e6de6f65f8704e340719e3bd71 Schofield, P. (2005). Hasty employers could be resigned to compensation. Personnel today. Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2005/08/09/31070/hasty-employers-could-be-resigned-to-compensation.html Teaching with Documents: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (1964). National Archives. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/ Read More