Wgu Human Resources Essay Example for Free

Wgu Human Resources Essay Upon investigation in to the claim of constructive discharge under the Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 my research found this claim to be irrelevant and unjustified. A constructive discharge happens when an employee is legally justified in claiming that he/she was forced to resign because the employer has made working conditions intolerable. In our situation a complaint was never filed with the company letting us know the employee was unhappy or giving us the opportunity to respond to the situation. Therefore the company was unaware of creating an intolerable working condition for that employee and we did not intentionally do it. The company experienced growth so the production schedule changed for all employees. The new schedule required employees to work 12-hour shifts with four days at work and then four days off. But the four work days can occur any day off the week, Monday through Sunday. So it is possible that the employee would still have had some holy days off. To justify their legal claim of constructive discharge the employee is going to have to prove in court that their working conditions were in fact intolerable and show that our company deliberately created intolerable working conditions with the intent of forcing the resignation. I feel that this will be very difficult if not impossible to prove. I recommend that we mediate the charge. I do not think we are guilty of constructive discharge. However, I think a compromise can be reached with the employee and we can accommodate their religious needs. Constructive discharge falls under the Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 which is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion. The religion portion is what pertains to our current situation. Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the employer. So the employee needs to notify the employer of a conflict between their religious beliefs or practices and a work rule. Congress enacted Section 5550a of Title V of the United States Code to ensure employees are given time off for religious observances. The law requires employees to be given the opportunity to work overtime in exchange for time that they have to miss for religious observances. The compensatory overtime can be worked either before or after the religious observance, but is paid at the employee’s straight-time rate. If the employee who filed the claim against us had come and notified us that there was a conflict between their religious beliefs or practices and a work rule, we then could have discussed the other schedule options that the employee has available to them. My first recommendation for the company on how to respond to the employee’s charge of constructive discharge is to go through the employee’s personal file. It is important to find out if there were ever any complaints filed from the employee to support their claim of â€Å"constructive discharge.† Also, we need to make sure the religious discrimination claims do not over shadow the employee’s duty to meet their legitimate job responsibilities. In the Patterson v. Indiana Newspaper, Inc., (2009) a woman sent an email on her last day at the job claiming she had enjoyed her time there. These statements lead to the dismissal of her claim of â€Å"constructive discharge† because she had expressed no complaint or concerns about her working environment. This case supports our situation because we have no record of the employee ever expressing concerns or complaining about the work schedule. My second recommendation would be to review the company’s internal reporting procedures. We would need to review and make sure that all the appropriate measures are being taken in a timely manner if someone complains about their working environment. Specific steps and procedures need to be followed to protect our company and our employees. In Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders (2004) the Supreme Court found that in order to establish constructive discharge a plaintiff must show that the environment was so intolerable that resigning was the only option. But the court also found that the plaintiff failed to avail herself of the internal reporting procedures as she resigned two days after mentioning harassment to an official. The case supports our position of not guilty because the employee who is filing charges against us did not follow the company’s internal reporting procedures. This would have allowed us to meet with the employee to see if we could come to an agreeable solution. Internal reporting procedures are there to protect everyone involved. My final recommendation would be to make a statement to the employee filing charges against us to inform them know that we are aware of the Code of Federal Regulations (Guidelines on discrimination because of religion, 2009) and that we are willing to work with the individual to find a solution. If the employee dropped the charges and came back to work for us then there are a number of accommodations we would suggest such as flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or a modification to our workplace policy. We would make ourselves very clear that we are willing to work with them in an effort to resolve the situation. In conclusion, for future reference a few recommendations I would make to avoid legal issues around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be: to offer seminars once a year reminding the employees of their rights and responsibilities including all forms of harassment or discrimination, managers would be required to receive twice a year training sessions on internal reporting procedures, and the company could setup an â€Å"Ethics† hotline that gives people the opportunity to report anonymously if they feel something or someone is not being treated fairly. Thank you for your time and please contact me with any questions.