Human Resources - The Practice of Constructive Dismissal - Essay Example

? Human Resources Module This paper contains a memo for the CEO regarding the case study presented. In this paper constructive discharge as a legal concept and areas covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, relevant to the scenario, has been discussed. Furthermore, case references have been made to support the given recommendations. Keywords: Constructive discharge, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 To The CEO Toy Company Subject: Memo regarding filed claim In this scenario the former employee is alleging that the practice of working for 4 days followed by 4 days off is a constructive dismissal since it forces employees who strictly observe religious holidays every week to be unable to work for the company and be forced out of their jobs. This needlessly and unreasonably marginalizes people categorized as being religious or belonging to any religion. Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act 1964 limits the abuse by any employer. It provides a guideline to the employers’ acts and decisions and to a certain extent even his belief towards managing his employees. Title 7 of the act states that it would be an unlawful employment practice if an employer intentionally or unintentionally tends to limit or classify his employees in any way that an employee is deprived of an opportunity towards the employment or affects the status of the individual. As part of the title 7 under the civil rights act 1964, constructive dismissal is considered as unfair and unlawful employment practices. The law prohibits firing employees without cause. Constructive dismissal is a way for an employer to circumvent the intentions of the civil rights act by creating such an atmosphere in a work place that an employee has no option but to resign. In this case the former employee is alleging that the practice of constructive dismissal has taken place. That due to the production staff and office workers given separate duty timings and days they are being treated differently. The company should face no problems in facing this charge. Under certain religions Friday is observed as a day of worship while in others Saturday or Sunday might hold religious significance, hence employees would ward off working on these days but in no way does it prove that the employer was targeting any specific employee in order to get rid of the individual or creating circumstances for constructive dismissal. The former employee would need to prove that these changes in the factory scheduling had no other reason than to discriminate against certain religions. In order to successfully defend against these allegations and respond to the former employee’s allegations, the company has to show the necessity of the change in schedule and why it was inevitable for the management of the company to reverse back the change that was brought about. I believe if we can demonstrate that these changes were necessary for the business needs, we will be successful in our defense. Firstly, production facilities that use a just in time factory schedule for production might get raw material supplies at night. If such a company changes its factory schedule from day hours to night hours, some employees might not prefer the new schedule and would need to quit their jobs. In this case the company has a demonstrated need for a change in schedule and any employee no longer used to the new schedule cannot allege constructive dismissal. Second, instead of getting raw material supplied for production daily, the company shifts to buying raw material in bulk for the next week, in order to be more efficient. Again, the company needs to prove that this change might have not been suitable for certain employees but the change is clearly motivated by business needs rather than discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in order to reply to the employee’s charge of constructive dismissal. Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides a definition to religious discrimination by stating that it involves treating a person unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The company can easily prove that this was in no means a religious discrimination since the decision of working in a 4 day cycle was inevitable due to the above mentioned reasons, i.e. raw material supplies, work capacity and equal staff distribution. The number of days in a week being in an odd number creates a hurdle as to how a cycle should be created for this specific former employee that he/she would end up not working on the holy day that he practices. Hence there has been no religious discrimination by the company as it was an inevitable duty that the company is being sued for. A case that completely resembles our company’s current legal problem is that of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. Hardison, an employee of TWA took Saturdays off stating that this day was of religious importance to him. This resulted in his removal from the job. The work shifts were administered by an agreement between the employees. This agreement showed that choice for shift requirements will be given on seniority basis rather religious affiliation. Hardison was low in seniority putting him in a situation to work during the Saturday shifts which he failed to comply with resulting in his disposal from the duties he was assigned (Justia US Supreme Court Center, 2013).  This reference proves the fact that our company’s former employee’s charges are unlawful and hold no legal standing. The discrimination the employer is alleged to have carried was related to reasonable accommodation. Religious discrimination and reasonable accommodation is clearly defined in title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provides that an employer is required to reasonably accommodate employee’s religious teachings except if doing so may affect more than an insignificant load on the processes of the employers business. This is in favor of the employer that due to an inevitable work cycle of the company the staff was required to work for 4 days. Reasonable adjustments can be made but once a week. Even though a single day’s adjustment can completely disturb the cycle of the staffs working days but it can be made once, it is impossible to make this adjustment every week. . Another important fact that needs to be discussed here is whether the former employee notified the employer of such a religious accommodation or not. As in the case of St. Mary’s Honor Center v Hicks, where judges imposed an additional burden on the plaintiff by stating that even if a plaintiff could explain that the employer lied about its reason for their employment decision, plaintiff would still be required to prove that the employer fabricated the facts to mask discrimination (Law.cornell.edu, 2013). There have been cases decided by court such as Fischer v. Forestwood Co, Inc proving that there is a level of harassment that would lead to constructive discharge. A mere sign of religious harassment is not enough to constitute to constructive discharge. In the case faced by our company there has just occurred a change in the working schedules which leads to charges against the company (Casetext.com, 2013). The guidelines of title 7 of the act further goes in our favor by stating that an employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. Accommodating the former employee would have completely disturbed the working cycle. It would decrease efficiency of work and place an infringement on the rights of other employees and will require them to do more than their share of potentially burdensome work. The company needs to infringe certain rules for smooth functioning in the future and avoid similar situations that lead to illegalities. One rule that they may introduce which will reduce the risks to charges of religious discrimination against them is a ‘time-off’ rule. The company must grant their workers a time off when they need to in order to practice their faith or religion. Back up workers must be hired who can work irrespective of their working cycle. Another way to reduce risks of employment discrimination is unpaid leave. The employee should have the right to take a day off in certain circumstances trading off his wage for that day. It can be seen by past judgments that title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as embarking through time will bring about huge number of cases which would require solutions not yet present. Companies would be required to entrench their rules along with the rules of the act as per requirement. The above mentioned methods should be introduced to avoid such charges in the future. Elementary Division Manager Toy Company References Casetext.com (2013). Fischer v. Forestwood Co., Inc., 525 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2008). [online] Retrieved from: https://www.casetext.com/case/fischer-v-forestwood-co-inc/ [Accessed: 18 Sep 2013]. Justia US Supreme Court Center (2013). Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison - 432 U.S. 63 (1977). [online] Retrieved from: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/432/63/case.html [Accessed: 18 Sep 2013]. Law.cornell.edu (2013). St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-602.ZS.html [Accessed: 18 Sep 2013] Read More