Many Would Argue That One Of The Most Influential

Guidelinesmany Would Argue That One Of The Most Influential Pieces Of

Many would argue that one of the most influential pieces of legislation passed to date is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of this act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It is critical for managers and employees in organizations to have an understanding of equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws to ensure that both employees and managers are protected.

Scenario: During your third week as the Division manager at XYZ toy company, the company attorney notifies you that a former employee (Ms. Jane Smith) has filed a claim against the company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, constructive discharge, after a work schedule policy change. Ms. Smith, who quit after the policy change took effect, is alleging that the enforcement of the company’s new policy on shift work is discriminatory because the policy requires employees to work on a religious holy day.

In the past, production employees worked Monday through Friday. As a result of company growth, the production schedule was changed at the beginning of the New Year, requiring employees to work 12-hour shifts with four days at work and then four days off. The four work days can occur any day of the week, Monday through Sunday. The entire production staff is required to work this rotating shift. Office staff members, however, work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. To keep legal costs down, the CEO has asked you to do the initial research on how the company should respond to Ms. Smith’s claim.

Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing Ms. Smith’s case against XYZ Toy Company, it is essential to evaluate whether her resignation constitutes a case of constructive discharge. Constructive discharge occurs when an employer's actions effectively force an employee to resign due to intolerable working conditions (Budd, 2004). This legal concept is relevant because if the work environment or policies change significantly and unreasonably, it may be deemed as the employer's intentional creation of intolerable conditions, thus justifying the employee’s resignation as a legally protected act. In Ms. Smith’s scenario, the enforcement of a policy requiring employees to work on religious holy days could be viewed as creating such intolerable conditions if it conflicts with her sincerely held religious beliefs and her choice of holy days (Koss & Sutherland, 2011).

Regarding the applicability of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ms. Smith's allegation implicates her right to religious accommodation, which is protected under this federal law. Specifically, Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business (EEOC, 2020). The company's requirement for all production staff to work on any day of the week, including religious holy days, without accommodation could be construed as discrimination against Ms. Smith's religious practices, especially if she has explicitly communicated her religious observance needs.

Based on the facts, XYZ Toy Company should carefully consider whether to accept liability for the charges filed by Ms. Smith under the EEOC. Given the evidence that the company's policy may infringe upon religious accommodations protected by Title VII, it would be advisable for the company to acknowledge the potential for non-compliance with federal law and seek to resolve the matter amicably. Therefore, XYZ should not outright deny the claim but rather engage in the ADA/Title VII complaint process. Accepting responsibility could involve offering a settlement or modifying policies to better accommodate religious practices, thus minimizing legal risks and demonstrating good-faith efforts to comply with legal obligations (U.S. EEOC, 2020).

To support this recommendation, three legal references are of particular importance:

  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This law mandates reasonable religious accommodation unless it causes undue hardship. It provides the foundational legal framework for evaluating the company's discrimination allegations and emphasizes the need for accommodation of religious practices at work (U.S. Congress, 1964).
  • EEOC Compliance Guidance on Religious Discrimination (2020): This guidance clarifies employers' obligations under Title VII to provide reasonable accommodations and outlines what constitutes undue hardship, offering a basis for assessing the legality of the company's policies (EEOC, 2020).
  • Case law: TWA v. Hardison (1977): The Supreme Court decision established that an employer's duty to accommodate religious practices must be balanced against operational burdens, shaping how employers respond to accommodation requests and informing how XYZ can modify policies to avoid violations (TWA v. Hardison, 1977).

Moving forward, XYZ Toy Company can undertake several steps to mitigate future legal issues related to Title VII and religious accommodation. First, the company should conduct comprehensive training for managers and HR staff on religious discrimination laws and best practices for accommodation. Second, establishing a clear, written religious accommodation policy will help formalize processes for employees to request adjustments without fear of retaliation or discrimination. Third, the company should implement flexible scheduling options wherever possible, such as allowing employees to swap shifts or work on different days, to accommodate religious practices while maintaining operational efficiency. Fourth, proactive engagement with employees regarding their religious needs can foster open communication and trust. Finally, establishing an internal review process for accommodation requests will enable the company to address potential issues early, reducing the risk of legal actions (FindLaw, 2020; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2020).

References

  • Budd, J. (2004). Constructive Discharge. In Employment Discrimination Law (pp. 145-160). Harvard University Press.
  • EEOC. (2020). Religious Discrimination. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/religious-discrimination
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2020). Religious Accommodation Guidance. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/relgious-accommodation
  • FindLaw. (2020). Religious Discrimination in the Workplace. https://www.findlaw.com/employment/employment-discrimination/religious-discrimination-in-the-workplace.html
  • Koss, L., & Sutherland, H. (2011). Religious Workplace Discrimination. Journal of Employment Law, 3(2), 45-60.
  • U.S. Congress. (1964). Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII. Public Law 88-352.
  • TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977). Supreme Court Decision.
  • U.S. EEOC. (2020). Religious Discrimination and Accommodation. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/religion

Related Assignments