Civil Rights Constructive Discharge

Upon investigation in to the claim of constructive discharge under the Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 my research found this claim to be irrelevant and unjustified. A constructive discharge happens when an employee is legally justified in claiming that he/she was forced to resign because the employer has made working conditions intolerable.

This says it is unlawful to discriminate against people at work because of their religion or belief. The regulations also cover training that is to do with work.

provide some type of relief to his work schedule. (29CFR1605.2, 2006) By failing to alert the company to his needs, the company was denied the opportunity to engage in the interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation and acceptable solution to the scheduling conflict. The 8th Circuit Court concluded that if the employee fails to inform an employer of a religious need, the employee “may forgo the right to have his beliefs accommodated by the employer.” (Chrysler Corp. v. Mann, 1977) The facts reveal that Mr. Fleck did not notify management of a religious conflict relating to the new schedule. This will allow his claim against the company to be unfounded. Title VII religious discrimination claims must prove that the employee informed the employer of the conflict and that the employer created working conditions untenable because of religious belief. (Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 1977). However, it is the Jinkie Pop Toy Company’s tradition to treat our employees with respect and dignity. Employees are the

The company can show to the courts that the accommodation of such a religious practice would result in undue hardship for the company. The shift change is being made due to the growth of the company. Not doing this will result in significant financial losses due to lost opportunities. In EEOC

Second, in 2013 the 10th Circuit Court ruled, an employee must communicate the disaccord between a religious practice and a work rule. The Court determined that an employee understands whether the practice observed by the employer is predicated in an inflexible religious practice. (10th Circuit Court, 2013) The relevance of this ruling is that only the employee can determine whether or not the employer is being inflexible in

A woman from South Carolina was denied unemployment benefits because of her religious beliefs. She was a Seventh Day Adventist who worshipped on Saturday. Her place of work originally only operated five days a week. Sherbert converted to Seventh Day Adventist and began to worship on Saturday. Her work then decided to be open six days a week including Saturday. She then refused to work on Saturday her day of worship and was fired because of it. After being fired she looked for a new job but could not find one that would accept

Gwendolyn I. Cooper v. Oak Rubber Company 15 F.3d 1375 (6th Cir 1994) case supports our recommendation of litigation because Cooper could not establish prima facie case of discrimination, that Oak reasonably accommodated her religious beliefs. The district court concluded that Oak could not have relieved Cooper all Saturday work responsibility without suffering undue hardship, i.e., the need to hire another employee or a resulting loss of production.

time off from work to practice their faith and celebrate religious holidays. Employers may face

K.B. runs this small department. She received approval to hire another medical ethicist to relieve the workload of the other ethicists who have a five-day workweek plus rotating on-call shifts nights and weekends. K.B. interviewed R.G. for the job. During the interview, she explained to R.G. that the on-call rotation was 5 pm to 8 am, Monday through Thursday, and weekends Friday at 5 pm through Monday at 8 am. K.B. emphasized how crucial it was for each ethicist to commit to their call schedule. K.B. acknowledged that she understood. After a successful interview, K.B. offered R.G. the job, and R.G. accepted. One week before she was to begin working, R.G. sent an email to K.B. requesting religious accommodation:

In the Turner v. Anheuser-Busch decision of 1994, the California Supreme Court states that constructive discharge "occurs when the employer's conduct effectively forces an employee to resign."

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibit many employers from engaging in religious discrimination in the workplace(Civil Rights n.d) The Somali Muslims requested reasonable accommodation for time to pray at sun down . The Somali were denied by JBS- SWIFT a reasonable accommodation for a payer time at sun down. Time for prayer would be considered a reasonable accommodation. JBS- SWIFT may request that Somali make up the time that was taken out for prayer. Employers are obligated to try in good faith to resolve the religious conflict between the Muslims and the meat packing company. JBS-SWIFT was held accountable for the termination of the Muslim that walked off the job,

The Meatpacking Factory is a case study involving the decision of a factory manager to let his Muslim workers observe their faith by taking breaks at sunrise and sundown during their holy month of Ramadan. James Windham, the factory manager, thought their request was well warranted and felt he should be considerate of the religious beliefs of his employees. There are about 100 Muslim workers which represents 20% of the employee population at the factory. To Windham’s dismay, the breaks began having a significantly negative affect on productivity due to the ever shifting sunset and sundown times. Trying to accommodate a constantly changing schedule left Windham struggling to nail down a

Religion in the workplace can bring up some of the most difficult issues employers have to face. Resolving these issues requires understanding the law and balancing the business's needs with an employee's desire to practice his or her religion. One of the most contentious conflicts is between an employee's desire to take time off and the potential reduction in productivity and profitability. In ruling on Title VII religion cases, the courts have held that employers aren't required to accommodate employees' religious activities when it involves increased financial costs, transferring supervisory personnel or employees from other departments resulting in inefficiency, or discriminating against other employees or violating seniority systems. Accommodations that don't constitute undue hardship to the employer include voluntary substitutions or employee "swaps," flexible work schedules, floating or optional holidays, staggered work hours, and allowing employees to make up lost time. Transfers and job changes also are options if they don't cause reduced efficiency or

To solve this problem we see it as necessary to educate the workforce to be sensitive towards differences in beliefs. Workplaces could accommodate by recognising holidays, allowing prayer breaks and accommodate for dietary and dress requirements.

If the employee has received a final written warning, further misconduct or unsatisfactory performance may lead to dismissal. In cases of Procedural Dismissal, an employee will receive the appropriate notice or payment in lieu of notice. In cases of