to: CEO from: John Doe subject: EEOC Charge date: May 5, 2014
The pending Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Complaint of constructive discharge is potentially conceivable as a violation of employee rights in relation to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission delineates constructive discharge as an event that impels an employee to quit, retire or downgrade their position because of discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The employee may be considered constructively discharged. If validated, the employee is entitled to the same recourse as if they were involuntarily discharged. (EEOC)
The required, mitigating circumstances to demonstrate a constructive discharge,…show more content… First, does the change in work schedule truly prohibit this individual from practicing their religious beliefs/responsibilities.
Second, could a reasonable accommodation have been made so the individual is provided relief regarding their religious practices.
I would encourage the company to engage and contest the EEOC in an arbitration/mediation on the constructive discharge complaint. Below are the reasons the company should take this avenue regarding the claim.
First, the ex-employee NEVER requested a reasonable accommodation. Title VII requires a person to make said request without the request creating an undue hardship to the company. An employee must inform the company of the need for an accommodation based on a disaccord between the person’s religious belief or practices and their work duties. The relevance is that the law requires the individual to request an accommodation. According to the information cited, this individual made no such request.
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