Constructive Discharge Memo: Constructive Discharge Under Title

Constructive Discharge

Memo: Constructive Discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Chief Executive Officer

Company Executive and Board of Staff

Response to the accusation of Constructive discharge filed against this company

I am writing this Memorandum to advise your office on the way forward in relation to the issue of constructive discharge filed against this company. As you know, an employee of this company has claimed that the recent changes in work-shifts schedule have been structured purposely to constrain their religious practices. In fact, the employee has filed legal charges grounding this company in a greater risk of contravening Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This memo provides a clear and resounding response on what is to be done to contain this situation. The memo will prove how this company could have violated the law by constrain employee religious rights (holy day). Secondly, the memo will recommend on what is to be done as a response to the constructive discharge. A decisive recommendation on how the company can minimize contravention of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is also provided.

How constructive discharge as a legal concept is relevant to the scenario.

It is evident from the employee's argument that the justification presented may have significant effects on constructive discharge. This is based on the knowledge that the employee alleges various accounts of violation of religious rights. Constructive discharge refers to the general misconduct of the employer, which prompts an employee to abandon the work. In any case, constructive discharge heavily revolves around employer-derived offenses like sexual harassment or denial of religious rights (Kaplin, & Barbara 2006, p. 411). In June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court presided over a decision in Pennsylvania State Police vs. Suders. During this case, the Supreme Court argued that constructive discharge was only possible in severe or pervasive situations. These are situations characterized in an abusive working environment (Bradley, 2004). The assumption presents a clear justification that this company may have violated intrinsic rights as alleged by the employee. This memo emphasizes the necessity of the company in abiding to a recent policy change where employees must honor all days as working days. In this event, the employee's charge on constructive discharge heavily discredits this company. This memorandum also requests the executive council to institute counterbalancing measures on the withdrawal of constructive discharge. In this case, the company can develop a special task force to look into unique matters related to employee intrinsic rights as compared to the court option.

Areas covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act was enacted on July 2, 1964. The Act outlaws all forms of discrimination against racial, national, ethnic, religious minorities, or gender. In particular, Title VII shows that it is must not discharge an individual or refuse to hire based on compensation, conditions, terms of employment premised on one's race, nationality, sex, color, religion, or origin. However, the scenario presented involves the deprivation of employee religious rights. The title further extends its affirmation of the concept of what it adversely affects employees' status. The Act empowers employees to file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After this, the EEOC is mandated to file a lawsuit with the federal court. However, it is logical to note that EEOC is empowered to dismiss the charge, and such an eventuality could be advantageous to this company.

Recommendation: Company's response to the employee's charge of constructive discharge

There are collective methods of responding to the employee's allegations of constructive discharge. Primarily, it is positive to consider that the policy provided four days of working and four days of working on a seven-day week schedule. The contention here is based on the remaining balance one day. In any case, losing a valuable employee is not a constructive development for the company. There is an option of initiating various defensive mechanisms and considering the option of negotiating. Negotiations will attempt to buy an employee loyalty by giving in to their demands. This is based on the knowledge that an employee is not willing to lose his job. Cathy (2010) argues that lawsuits are instituted in special cases. However, it is important to negotiate with an attorney whether an employee to consider a waiver.

A waiver takes effect if the employee is satisfied with the quality of services presented by the employer. In addition, EEOC and the employer through the investigator may negotiate for a settlement with the agency or the charging party. This is possible after the determination of the validity and legitimacy of the situation. In the case presented, the company developed methodologies to maximize labor while maintaining sufficient off-duty time. However, some employees are dissatisfied with the process of policy development. This makes it harder to pursue genuine company goals. Therefore, negotiation will provide the legitimate reason of quitting whilst providing a suitable formula between the company and the employee (Berger, 2001). Secondly, negotiation is instrumental in enabling the company to adopt various counter- provisions. Counter provisions may include the expansion of fringe benefits, financial compensation for lost time, or other engineered performance appraisal mechanism (Robert, 2002).