A. Constructive Discharge
Constructive discharge, or constructive dismissal, means that the employee resigned from their position as a result of the employer creating an intolerable and difficult environment. Constructive discharge is viewed as the employee being pressured to quit due to the employer making changes to the working conditions or responsibilities, but from a legal position, the employee quit due to forced termination, or fired without good cause. ("TimsLaw.com » Constructive Discharge - Being forced to quit - Tim 's Missouri Employment Law Info Site," n.d.)
At the beginning of the year, a work schedule policy change was made to increase production hours as a result of company growth. The previous Monday through Friday work schedule
…show more content…
First is because the policy change was made due to the growth in our company and the need to increase production. By not making this change our company would begin to suffer due to lack of supply to meet the market demands forcing an unnecessary hardship on the company. Second is a result from the “reasonable person test”. “An employee who resigns after being subjected to unlawful discrimination is said to have been constructively discharged if a reasonable person would have found the discriminatory conditions to be intolerable.” (Finnegan, 2001, p. 562) Finally, the employee must provide definitive proof of their religious beliefs and conclude with irrefutable evidence proving the working conditions were intolerable and that the employer created the conditions, targeting the employee into …show more content…
Dubuque Packing Co. (1982) Reasonable actions from employee would have been to take immediate steps, short of resignation, to work with management in order to address the intolerable working condition in an effort to make them more tolerable. Due to the fact that the former employee quit immediately after the new policy change was put into effect, shows that no actions were taken to resolve the intolerable working conditions.
In the case of a reasonable person test, “a reasonable person in [the employee 's] position would have felt that he was forced to quit because of intolerable and discriminatory working conditions.” The evidence was inconclusive due to Thomas’ “subjective personal discomfort, however, was most likely not the product of any action by appellees but, rather, the product of human nature.” Thomas v. Douglas
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
...g went to the fact that even though the business did not purposely discriminate, it did in fact due to a policy that is discriminatory in nature. In other words, the true reason for the firing was directly related to substance abuse. Although the employee was technically not let go due to the abuse specifically, the fact that this occurred in fact is enough to render the policy unfair. I feel that this law provides great value to my workplace as, it protects those who have made mistakes at the workplace due to a disability. In this case it was substance abuse, but the same concept could be applied to other conditions that alter behavior.
In the case of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company the Supreme Court of the United States found the Duke Power Company liable for violating the civil rights of thirteen African American employees of Duke Power Company. This was a result of the Duke Power Company intradepartmental transfer policy requirements of a high school education and achieving a minimum scores on two aptitude tests. The intrade direct violation because the power company could not link the intradepartmental transfer policy to benefit or predict the how the employee will lead and serve Duke Power Company. Disparate treatment is the matter of proof. The plaintiff alleging direct, intentional discrimination must first be able to establish a prima facie case and second, he or she is able to establish that the employer was acting on the basis of a discriminatory motive (Caruth).The class action suit, on the behalf of the thirteen African American employees, resulted in a unanimous ruling in favor of Griggs, Duke Power Company.
A single aspect of McClelland’s experience illustrates the issue within warehouse operations. The workers are forced to work in a fast-paced, highly stressful environment with minimal to no social relief to break up the day. Long jaunts and short breaks lead to maximum levels of worker discomfort, but they have no choice but to keep going if they wish to keep their jobs. Always being on the move is unhealthy. The operators of the warehouse obviously disregard the health of their workers for the sake of saving a few
In order to prove the existence of purposeful discrimination, McCleskey must first demonstrate that he belonged to a group “that is a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment” (McCleskey v. Kemp 318). Here, McCleskey relied on the Baldus study,...
Factory workers worked twelve to fifteen hours a day in hazardous condition. There were no protective rules for women and children and no insurances for job-related accidents or industrial illness. The workers were obliged to trade at company store
Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R., Chan, S., Brief, A. P., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). Suble yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56(11), 1299-1324.
Strong difference of opinions. There was never a specific reason for discharging me. At the time it was agreed upon between both parties that “going separate ways” was the best option.
In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.
Religious Discrimination according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, involves treating a person (applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. It can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to or associated with an individual of a particular religion or because of his or her connection with a religious organization/group. Today, most twenty-first century managers are familiar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that failing or refusing to accommodate an employee’s religious practices, or taking adverse employment action based on a person’s religion can result in charges of discrimination (EEOC). Therefore, managers should not use or inquire about an individual’s religious beliefs unless an accommodation is requested.
Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that is forbidden by laws in which all employers must comply, including fire and emergency services. Disparate treatment in the workplace is applicable to many functions of the workplace including, discipline, promotions, hiring, firing, benefits, layoffs, and testing (Varone, 2012). The claim of disparate treatment arises when a person or group, “is treated differently because of a prohibited classification” (Varone, 2012, p. 439). In the 2010 case, Lewis v. City of Chicago, six plaintiffs accused the city of disparate treatment following testing for open positions within the Chicago Fire Department (Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2010). The case is based on the argument that the Chicago Fire Department firefighter candidate testing, which was conducted in 1995, followed an unfair process of grouping eligible candidates, therefore discriminating against candidates of African-American decent. The case was heard by the Seventh District Court of Appeals and ultimately appeared before the United States Supreme Court, where Justice Scalia delivered the final verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
There are a range of strategies managers could use to minimise instances of dysfunctional discrimination occurring in their workplace. These selected strategies aim to reduce the frequency of dysfunctional discrimination, rather than the severity. Some of these strategies include; a discrimination audit, enforced policies, selection procedures, and providing an effect complaint handling system.
Workplace harassment is unwelcome actions that are based on a person’s race, religion, color, and sex, and gender, country of origin, age, ethnicity or disability. The targets of the harassment are people who are usually perceived as “weaker” or “inferior” by the person who is harassing them. Companies and employers can also be guilty of workplace harassment if they utilize discriminatory practices against persons based on ethnicity, country of origin, religion, race, color, age, disability, or sex. These discriminatory practices have been illegal since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Civil Rights Act of 1964), and have been amended to be more inclusive of other people who experience discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (The Civil Rights Act of 1991), and most recently, President Obama’s signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Stolberg, 2009).
Harassment and discrimination can affect a business in many ways. Having a history of harassment and discrimination claims can damage a business’ reputation and affect its bottom line. It can cost the business current and future clients as well as investors and employees. Depending on the gravity of the claim(s), the process of settling the claim(s) can take anywhere from months to years. Meanwhile, the cost of the settlement and other fees continue to add up. A business might have to compensate the affected parties besides paying court fees and lawyers. The EEOC has seen a rise in monetary rewards from 7.5 million to 24.3 million (Glazer, 1996) However, all of these can be avoided by properly educating employers and employees about their rights and what harassment and discrimination entails.
Work plays an important role in our daily life, it is considered much more huge part of our personal life. During our daily work we make many relationships throughout our career history. Sometimes these relationships become lasting, and sometimes employment discrimination might happen. This relationships that we thought it last could be cut off by the devastation of claims of discriminatory treatment. Discrimination in the workforce has been an issue since the first people of workers in United States in the present day and as well in the past. Some employees were subjected to a harsh working conditions, verbal abuse, denial of advancement,, and many other injustices. There was also the fact that certain employees were being treated differently than other employees.