By
Boriana Helmick
Western Governors University
Human Resources - RJDT Task 1
Jimmy Jewell
January 27, 2013
A. Constructive Discharge Constructive discharge is a legal term that occurs when an employer creates unbearable working conditions for an employee, so s/he has no other option but to resign. Typical conditions are cut in wages, refusal of holiday, changes in duty, verbal abuse, lack of support and demotion. Although constructive discharge is clearly defined as forcing an employee to resign by making the work environment so difficult, unpleasant, or intolerable that a reasonable person in the aggrieved person 's position would feel compelled to resign, proving it is fairly complicated. …show more content…
Title VII is a section of the Civil Rights Act that applies to employment decisions and mandates that they cannot be based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2010) Discrimination is present when the employee is treated unfavorably because of their different appearance, believes or background. For example religious discrimination involves treating an employee or a job candidate unfair because of his/her religious believes. “Religion” is very broadly defined in the law to include all religious observances, practices and beliefs. Not only traditional and familiar churches of Christianity, Judaism or Islam can be considered religion, but also a small spiritual or ritual group of people with new and uncommon …show more content…
Company Response According to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) law constructive discharge is present when the employer is forcing an employee to resign by making the work environment so intolerable that a reasonable person would not be able to stay. As a legal term “reasonable person” is a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct. (Farlex, Inc., 2013) The former employee of the toy company was a religious person who quit his work after the new policy on shift work was enforced. S/he considered it to be discriminatory because the policy required employees to work on a religious holy day. The change of the policy affected all employees, however they did not resign. The “holy” day for the former employee was not a “holy” day for all employees because they represented different religious and had different believes. Therefore the former employee does not fit the definition of “reasonable person” and the company should plead “not guilty.” In addition, there is no evidence that the change of the policy was led by malice employer’s