To: Chief Executive Officer
Subject: Response to constructive discharge law suit.
Constructive discharge occurs when an employer makes working conditions unbearable that an employee feels forced to resign from his job. Unbearable conditions can include discrimination, harassment or negative change in pay.
In our company’s case the former employee alleges that enforcement of company’s new shift policy is discriminatory because the policy requires employees to work on a religious holy day.
The former employee can establish that constructive discharge occurred only if he can show that our company purposefully created an intolerable or discriminating working environment to quit.
The…show more content… In this case it is clear that company has to undergo hardship to accommodate the employees’ religious beliefs.
The law clearly states that appellant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case, and sustains that burden by showing that he/she holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; that he has informed his employer of the conflict; and that he was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement.
In this case there is not enough evidence to prove the former employee informed the company about his conflict with the new work shift. And there is no evidence the company discharged or disciplined the employee.
The company can opt for litigation in this charge by former employee alleging constructive discharge.
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.
David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company 337 F.3d 629 (6th Cir 2003) case supports our