This paper examines constructive discharge in the context of religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It explains when intolerable working conditions — such as mandatory scheduling on religious holy days — can legally constitute wrongful termination. The paper outlines the scope of Title VII's religious protections, the employer's duty to provide reasonable accommodation without undue hardship, and the employee's burden of establishing a prima facie case. Drawing on relevant case law, including Tepper v. Potter, Lawson v. State of Washington, and Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company, the paper also recommends proactive company policies to reduce exposure to constructive discharge claims.
Constructive discharge occurs when an employee's only viable option is to quit because the employer has made working conditions unbearable. In a scenario involving a religious employee, the employee made clear that he or she cannot work on a holy day due to religious principles protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The mandatory shift forced on the employee created an unbearable condition in the workplace. Unbearable conditions may include discrimination, harassment, or an undesirable modification to compensation or job duties for reasons that are not professional in nature.
Because the work shifts fell on days of religious observance and the company did not offer an alternative shift, schedule, or other option, the employee was faced with either diminished work or resignation — thereby creating an unbearable work condition. While employees who voluntarily quit are generally not entitled to unemployment benefits and typically forfeit the right to sue for wrongful termination, constructive discharge is an exception. If an employee can demonstrate that he or she was compelled to leave a job due to intolerable conditions created by the employer, a wrongful termination suit may be filed against the former employer. In this context, being forced to quit is legally comparable to being illegally discharged.
Religious observance falls squarely within the category of religion that Title VII protects. Title VII safeguards all aspects of religious adherence and practice, including faith, and defines religion broadly for the purposes of determining what the law covers. Because the scenario concerns religious observance, the employee has the right to claim that the company created intolerable conditions, and is also justified in asserting that the company's actions were based solely on the employee's religious practices rather than job performance.
Religion is a protected category under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious observances and practices protected under "Religion" include, for instance, attendance at worship services, prayer, wearing religious clothing or symbols, displaying religious items, following particular dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, and declining to participate in specific activities that conflict with one's faith. Whether a particular practice or observance qualifies as religious may depend on the employee's motivation. The same practice may be performed by one person for religious purposes and by another for entirely secular reasons — such as aesthetic choices like tattoos or piercings. In the present scenario, the employee observes no work on a holy day. Saturday, for example, is recognized as a holy day by Jewish people, who traditionally refrain from working on the Sabbath.
Discrimination based on religion within the meaning of Title VII can include: refusing to hire an otherwise qualified applicant because he is a self-described evangelical Christian; a Jewish supervisor denying a promotion to a qualified non-Jewish employee out of religious favoritism; or terminating an employee because he informed the employer that he had recently converted to the Bahá'í Faith (Neal, 2013, p. 178).
Equally, requirements for reasonable accommodation of a religious practice or belief may include: a Jewish employee requesting a schedule change to attend church services on Good Friday; a Muslim employee asking for an exception to the company's dress and grooming code in order to wear a head covering; or a Hindu employee requesting a vegetarian option at a company event. These accommodations are reasonable and enable employees to continue adhering to their religious beliefs. Title VII requires that the cost of accommodation be less than the burden it would impose on the employer.
Title VII requires an employer who has been properly notified of a need for religious accommodation to make a genuine attempt to accommodate an employee whose religious practice conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would create undue hardship. "Under Title VII, the undue hardship defense to providing religious accommodation requires a showing that the proposed accommodation in a particular case poses a 'more than de minimis' cost or burden" (Neal, 2013, p. 182). The company must be able to demonstrate either that the employee did not request accommodation or that the company offered viable alternatives. As Neal notes: "Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices" (Neal, 2013, p. 24).
Employers are not obligated to grant every request for accommodation related to a religious belief or practice. "Title VII requires employers to accommodate only those religious beliefs that are religious and 'sincerely held,' and that can be accommodated without an undue hardship" (American Law Institute–American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education, 1988, p. 14). Ordinarily, employers do not question the sincerity of an employee's claimed religious observance or practice. However, if an employer has reason to doubt the employee's sincerity, the employer may make an inquiry to verify the need for accommodation. The company can therefore determine whether the employee claiming constructive discharge is sincere in his or her beliefs. If the employee is found not to be sincere, the case could be dismissed, as the employer would have had no obligation to provide accommodation. It is important for the company to gather evidence and assess the employee's sincerity in order to evaluate whether the case has grounds for dismissal.
The employee must establish a prima facie case — including whether the company offered accommodation options or not. In 2007, a comparable religious discrimination case filed against a postal service attracted significant attention. "In this case, Tepper v. Potter, the plaintiff Martin Tepper, a Messianic Jew, had been permitted to avoid Saturday work to observe his religious holiday, the Sabbath" (Labor & Employment Law Practice Group, 2007, p. 1). The company provided Tepper with alternatives to allow him to continue observing his religious practices, including some Saturdays off and the option of using vacation days on Saturdays he did not receive off. He was also permitted to exchange work days with other employees. The company had documented proof of its accommodation efforts, and the case was decided in favor of the postal service because Tepper was unable or unwilling to meet the burden of proving that the postal service would not reasonably accommodate his request for Saturdays off without undue hardship.
"Key cases testing employee burden of proof"
"Five policies to reduce constructive discharge exposure"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.