Task #1 – JDT2 Memo to CEO To CEO: As you may be certified, the audience is currently facing a lawsuit brought about by a first-mentioned employee, Mr. X. He is claiming that subordinate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII he has been a martyr of “hearsay acquit” past we enjoy alterefficacious the audience’s resulting catalogue skillful-treatment to a impure day rotational change. Hearsay acquit or forcing an employee to renounce by making the result environment so portentous a culm idiosyncratic would not be efficacious to alight (Equal Pursuit Convenience Commission, 2012) is illicit according to U. S. law. Mr. X states that past we enjoy bybygone to the impure day rotational catalogue, his divine beliefs are being infringed upon past he would enjoy to result on his divine “holy day”. According to U. S. law, the audience does enjoy an bond to determine Mr. X’s entreat. The law requires an mistress to reasonably determine an employee's divine beliefs or practices, intrinsic doing so would source difficulty or charge for the mistress. (EEOC, 2012).
I would relish to effect the aftercited commendations touching this locality. First, gainsay any wickedness doing settleed upon the aftercited:
Mr. X overlooked to inform anyone among the audience of his divine condition, in other words he did not settle one of the key elements of prima facie (Leagle, n. d. ). Had Mr. X made the audience certified of his divine beliefs, it command enjoy been potential to effect allowefficacious accommodations for him.
Mr. X was not subjected to portentous provisions during his pursuit, which is to-boot another element. A hearsay acquit occurs when a idiosyncratic quits his or her job subordinate proviso in which a culm idiosyncratic would affect that the provisions of pursuit enjoy behove portentous. (Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, 2002).
If the Mr. X was unefficacious to harmonize to the culm accommodations put forth by the audience, then the audience would stay “undue hardship” (Justia, 1982) by requiring the ascititious charge and spell to employ a immediate employee to secrete Mr. X’s change.
Secondly, to eschew any legitimate issues about Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 I commend implementing a “best practices” skillful-treatment. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, “Employers should graft "best practices" to refer the relishlihood of discernment and to harangue impediments to similar pursuit convenience. ” (Society for Human Resource Management, 2011). Potential practices to be implemented could include written criteria for hiring, standardized questioning, own archives guardianship, skillful-treatment inoculation, publicized anti-harassment skillful-treatment, allowing non-disruptive divine countenance and proactively moderate in potential fight. (EEOC, 2012).
Prohibited Pursuit Policies/Practices. Retrieved from http://www. eeoc. gov/laws/practices/index. cfm EEOC. (2012).
Best Practices for Eradicating Divine Discernment 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 Hearsay Acquit Due to Divine 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