For your Review
Per your request, I have conducted an initial review of the pending litigation against this organization
brought by Mr. Robert Simmons, a former employee in the production department.
Mr. Simmons is alleging that the recent policy change requiring production staff to work alternating 4
days on/4 days off shift work is a case of constructive discharge causing him to leave this
As a matter of context, I will briefly review the standards by which constructive discharge, as a legal
concept, is relevant to this case.
According to Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc, the State of California considers constructive discharge
to be a case where ...view middle of the document...
Upon further review, in connection with Title VII, The Code of Federal Regulations states that it is
“an unlawful employment practice under section 703(a)(1) for an employer to fail to reasonably
accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless the employer
demonstrates that accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business.”
Based on the limited information I have regarding Mr. Simmons’ work history with our company, I
make the following recommendations to answer his claims while at the same time, avoiding legal
issues around title VII.
Mr. Simmons could be offered his position back with the company with a full restoration of benefits
and tenure (if any) based on the following conditions:
1. He enter into a timely discussion with his management team and the appropriate HR staff
to fully address and allow this organization to understand the circumstances of his
2. He willingly offers suggestions and makes concessions on how a reasonable
accommodation can be reached with regard to his religious practices.
3. He makes a full retraction in writing of any and all legal action pertaining to this, and
only this, event.
Should Mr. Simmons feel it necessary to refuse these conditions and continue on his current course of
legal action, I recommend pursuit of court dismissal of the case.
The justification for this recommendation is as follows:
1. Historically, in the cases I have mentioned and dozens of others, the burden is on the
plaintiff to show that this organization put the new work schedule in place specifically for
the purpose of forcing him to resign. Under the legal precedence of constructive
discharge, this is required. However, it will be very difficult for Mr. Simmons to