FROM: Division Manager
DATE: January 29, 2014
RE: Discrimination Research
The following are my findings regarding the constructive discharge from the employee that has left our company after our policy change.
The employee is alleging that we discriminated against them because we made them work on a “Holy Day.” He is claiming “constructive discharge.” Constructive Discharge is when an organization makes the employee’s work environment was so intolerable that they had no choice but to quit (constructive dismissal). He is stating that because we change the work schedule ...view middle of the document...
This test in reality is to state if a normal person would have suffered discrimination is put in this situation. In other words, would a person who was not religious feel that this schedule change would make them feel the work environment was so hostile that they would have no choice, but to resign from their position. I am putting myself as a “reasonable person” for this situation. I do not feel that the environment would be hostile. I would just have to look at other options before I leave this position. I would make sure that I cannot switch with another person or use my vacation days for any time I would want off on the “Holy Day.”
The second recommendation is to let the EEOC know that we feel we are not guilty of discrimination towards this employee. One of our arguments is that this employee did not inform us of his religious beliefs. It is the law that if he did we had to accommodate him unless doing so would cause undue hardship on our company (Am I protected from religious discrimination?). It is impossible for us to help him out if he does not inform us. This can also be seen in Gwendolyn I. Cooper v. Oak Rubber Co., she filed suit against the company alleging that they discriminated against her religious beliefs. Oak instituted an accumulation of points for unexcused absences because they had a serious absenteeism problem. Oak ran five or six day work weeks with the sixth or the seventh day would be for cleaning and maintaining the machines. Gwendolyn started working for them in 1975, started attending her church services in Jan. 1984, and had gotten baptized in her church in Dec. 1984. She was not supposed to work sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. In 1984, she worked numerous Saturdays and a total of nine Saturdays in 1985. In 1986, she informed her supervisor that she would not be able to work on Saturdays because of religious beliefs. Her supervisor’s response was that the Saturday work was not always done and that they did not know when it would happen, so they could not do anything for her. She was given the option of using her leave time and also to go back to her previous shift, so that she could attend Saturday services. Her response was no because it went against her religious beliefs. She kept missing Saturdays and then resigned in April to avoid receiving the tenth point for being absent. A month after she left the company hired 18 more employees to help alleviate the work. In the end, the court ruled against her because Oak could not dismiss her from working on Saturdays without undue hardship, they would have had to hire another person to cover her time (Gwendolyn I. Cooper v. Oak Rubber Company and John Doe, Supervisor, 1994).
Another argument that would help us is that the employee did not work with us in accommodating his religious beliefs. He left the burden on us as the company, when in reality he needed to work with us (Kenneth R. Yott v. NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORPORATION and...