Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964

Submitted By Daniel-Hodge
Words: 761
Pages: 4

Hodge Entertainment
4511 Felicity Lane, Austin, 78725

To: John Smith, CEO
From: Daniel Hodge
CC: Fred Flintstone, Company Attorney
Date: 11/21/2013


Susan Smith Claim
-Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Mr. Smith,
Constructive Discharge, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, occurs when an employee is forced to resign due to an employer’s behavior becoming so intolerable that the employee feels they have no choice to resign. Due to the fact this action was not voluntary, but rather forced by the employer’s actions, it is in actuality a termination, and not a resignation.
In this situation with Susan Smith, the relevant section under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the prohibition of discrimination based on religion. Susan is claiming the new work schedule discriminates against her religion and thus she was forced to quit. Constructive discharge as a legal concept is relevant to the scenario involving Susan Smith because Miss Smith believes the new company policy is creating intolerable working conditions, which resulted in her having no choice other than to quit. Title VII of the Civil Rights also covers discrimination against any individual for race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It also makes it unlawful to limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way which would deprive the individual of


employment opportunities or adversely affect employment status because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Hodge Games should respond by adamantly denying allegations of Constructive Discharge. This policy was not created for a specific set of employees and in no way segregated or created unfair employment situations. The new policy affects all production workers, not just those of a particular religion, and the four day schedule can occur any day of the week. If Susan Smith needs a particular day off for religions reason, she would only need to request it.
Our position is backed up first of all by the California Supreme Court, in Turner v Anheuser-Busch, Inc. which states "In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove, by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee's resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee's position would be compelled to resign." Furthermore, the Federal Courts created the constructive discharge test for employment discrimination to determine if an employee’s resignation was voluntary in Morris v Shroder Capital. Neither Susan Smith, nor her religion, were singled out by the new scheduling policy. The Courts in Morris v Shroder Capital have found that in order to meet this threshold, the trier of fact must be satisfied that the working conditions were so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would have felt compelled to resign.”
Finally, the