As you will recall, Mr - Employment Essay introduction. Buford Bernard resigned his position with our company after the production schedule changed as of January 1. Prior to January 1 the production work schedule was Monday – Friday, 8 hours per day. Due to company expansion the new production work schedule requires employees to work 12 hours per shift, 4 days at work and then 4 days off.
The days off rotate according to the rotation of the schedule thereby requiring employees to work on religious holy days. Mr. Bernard has filed a claim against the company under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, constructive discharge claiming that he was required to work on religious holy days and was therefore discriminated against based on religious reasons. Constructive discharge is defined as discharge of an employee affected by making the employee’s working conditions so intolerable that he or she reasonably feels compelled to resign. In order for constructive discharge to be relevant to Mr.
More Essay Examples on Employment Rubric
Bernard’s resignation he would have had to give management, in writing, notification that he felt he was being discriminated based on the schedule change and making him work on religious holy days. He furthermore needs to give management a minimum of 15 days notice that he intended to resign. In speaking with Mr. Bernard’s supervisor it was determined the Mr. Bernard did not make management aware of his discontentment with the new schedule policy thereby not giving the company the opportunity to make suitable arrangements to accommodate Mr. Bernard’s religious observation of holy days.
In not making the company aware, constructive discharge is not relevant to the case. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protect the rights of individuals against discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. In Section 703 it states that it is unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, term, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Equal Employment Opportunity).
Title VII also requires an employer, once they have been made aware than a religious accommodation has been made to reasonable accommodate that employee unless doing so would cause an undue hardship to the company (Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace, 2011). It is the employee’s responsibility to attempt to resolve the situation with his supervisor, if there is no resolution to the discrimination issue then he needs to make human resources or management aware of the religious discrimination allegations.
After 15 days, if an attempt has not been made to rectify the allegations then the employee can file a complaint with the EEOC. Mr. Bernard did not make complaints to his supervisor, human resources, or management, therefore, not fulfilling his responsibility (Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace, 2011) It is my recommendation that in this situation, Toy Central tries to resolve this case with Mr. Buford Bernard though conciliation, which would be a compromise among Toy Central, Mr.
Bernard and the EEOC. Given the fact that Mr. Bernard did not notify anyone of his discontentment, the case will not go to trial and would be dismissed by the EEOC. Legal references that support my recommendation are as follows: 1. A Chandler, Arizona based Mexican Restaurant won a court battle of a claimed religious discrimination by one of their former employees. The employee taught an after-hours bible study group that included three of her subordinates.
This was in violation of the company’s code of conduct which stated that supervisors were prohibited from socializing with subordinates outside of work in order to avoid sexual harassment and unfair treatment of employee complaints. The president of the restaurant testified that he had provided the employee other options but she was unwilling to accept any and therefore she was fired (Serrano’s wins in religious discrimination case, 2009) 2. A Birmingham Alabama based manufacturing company has to pay $25,000 to an applicant that filed a claim of religious discrimination through the EEOC. When Mr.
James Wright applied for employment he stated that he was a Seventh Day Adventist, and therefore could not work Saturdays as that is his day of worship. Mr. Wright and the EEOC stated in the claim that the company decided not to hire Mr. Wright because of his religious affiliation. As part of the agreed upon settlement the company also agreed to present annual training on discrimination to all of its managers and supervisors (Greenwald, 2013). 3. In Seattle Washington Wal-Mart agreed to pay $70. 000 and institute preventive measures to resolve a federal religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC.
The lawsuit claimed that for 14 years Wal-Mart had accommodated an employee’s request to not work on Sunday’s as he was a devout Mormon and it was against his religious beliefs. In 2009 Wal-Mart its scheduling system and refused to provide the accommodation any longer. Disciplinary measures were taken if he were absent from work on Sunday if he was unable to get someone to switch shifts with him (Wal-Mart Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit, 2012). 4. In Boca Raton, Florida a nursing and rehabilitation center, Menorah House, had a lawsuit filed against them by 2 C. N. A. ’s and the EEOC.
After providing their religious accommodations of not working Saturdays due to their Seventh Day Adventist religious beliefs for over 8 years Menorah House implemented a policy making it mandatory for all employees to work Saturday’s regardless of their religion. The U. S. District Court ruled in favor of the 2 C. N. A’s and the EEOC (Menorah House Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuits, 2012) In the first case, the employee was not willing to take any of the options made available to her in order for her to continue teaching the bible study class and still maintain her job.
Reasonable accommodations were made, but were not accepted by the employee. In cases 2-4 support the conciliation response to the claim made by Mr. Bernard in that Mr. Bernard did not make his feelings of religious discrimination known to a supervisor, HR director or management and therefore does not meet the EEOC regulations for religious discrimination. In the future in order to avoid any discrimination issued in regard to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Toy Central should take the following steps: 1. Have training with all managers and supervisors on discrimination and how to avoid it. . Make employees aware of the company’s “No Tolerance” policy when it comes to any type of discrimination whether it is religious, age, race, religious, country of origin or sexual. 3. Make employees aware that if they feel they are a victim of discrimination they need to inform their supervisor, if they have no response from their supervisor they need to take it to human resources or management. 4. Toy Central will accommodate reasonable requests so that employees can observe their religious holy days. REFERENCES Greenwald, J. (2013, January 2).
EEOC settles Seventh Day Adventist religious discrimination suit. Retrieved March 4, 2013, from Business Insurance: http://www. businessinsurance. com/article/20130102 Menorah House Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuits. (2012, March 12). Retrieved March 4, 2013, from U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: http://www. eeog. gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-12-12. cfm Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace. (2011, January 31). Retrieved February 27, 2013, from The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: http://eeoc. ov/policy/docs/quanda_religion. html Serrano’s wins in religious discrimination case. (2009, January 21). Retrieved March 7, 2013, from Arizona Central: http://www. azcentral. com/community/chandler/articles Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Equal Employment Opportunity. (n. d. ). Retrieved March 3, 2013, from FindLaw: www. employment. findlaw. com Wal-Mart Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit. (2012, June 1). Retrieved March 4, 2013, from U. S. Equal Opportunity Commission: http://www1. eeoc. gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-1-12b. cfm