Task #1 – JDT2 Memo to CEO To CEO: As you may be cognizant, the congregation is currently confrontment a lawsuit brought environing by a earlier employee, Mr. X. He is claiming that lower the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII he has been a prey of “deductive release” past we enjoy modifioperative the congregation’s started register plan to a disgusting day rotational remove. Deductive release or forcing an employee to abandon by making the production environment so prodigious a moderate peculiar would not be operative to come (Equal Holding Turn Commission, 2012) is illicit according to U. S. law. Mr. X states that past we enjoy past to the disgusting day rotational register, his devotional beliefs are nature infringed upon past he would enjoy to production on his devotional “holy day”. According to U. S. law, the congregation does enjoy an contract to determine Mr. X’s entreat. The law requires an mistress to reasonably determine an employee's devotional beliefs or practices, unless doing so would action awkwardness or price for the mistress. (EEOC, 2012).
I would relish to fabricate the forthcoming approveations concerning this footing. First, withhold any wickedness doing naturalized upon the forthcoming:
Mr. X obsolete to intimate anyone amid the congregation of his devotional condition, in other vote he did not demonstrate one of the key constituents of prima facie (Leagle, n. d. ). Had Mr. X made the congregation cognizant of his devotional beliefs, it command enjoy been feasible to fabricate allowoperative accommodations for him.
Mr. X was not subjected to prodigious provisions during his holding, which is as-well another constituent. A deductive release occurs when a peculiar quits his or her job lower stipulation in which a moderate peculiar would impress that the provisions of holding enjoy beseem prodigious. (Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, 2002).
If the Mr. X was unoperative to fit to the moderate accommodations put forth by the congregation, then the congregation would stay “undue hardship” (Justia, 1982) by requiring the borrowed price and occasion to employ a impermanent employee to shelter Mr. X’s remove.
Secondly, to quit any juridical issues encircling Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 I approve implementing a “best practices” plan. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, “Employers should inoculate "best practices" to diminish the relishlihood of distinction and to discourse impediments to similar holding turn. ” (Society for Human Resource Management, 2011). Feasible practices to be implemented could conceive written criteria for hiring, standardized questioning, appertinent annals maintenance, skill inoculation, publicized anti-harassment plan, allowing non-disruptive devotional countenance and proactively comprised in feasible combat. (EEOC, 2012).
Prohibited Holding Policies/Practices. Retrieved from http://www. eeoc. gov/laws/practices/index. cfm EEOC. (2012).
Best Practices for Eradicating Devotional Distinction in the Workplace http://www. eeoc. gov/policy/docs/best_practices_religion. html Leagle. (n. d. ) Jerrold S. HELLER v. EBB AUTO CO. Retrieved from http://www. leagle. com/xmlResult. aspx? xmldoc=19891863774P2d1089_11857. x ml=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. (2002, August 10). Court Concludes There Was No Deductive Release Due to Devotional Beliefs. Retrieved from http://lcwlegal. com/64957 Justia. (1982, March 22). Marvin Brener v. Diagnostic Center Hospital. Retrieved from http://law. justia. com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/671/141/442160/##
Society for Human Resource Management. (2012) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. EEOC Retrieved from http://www. shrm. org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/FederalStatutesRegulationsan dGuidanc/Pages/TitleVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964. aspx