Register to read the introduction…
Ohio), the plaintiff, Martin Tepper, a Messianic Jew, was employed by the Postal service for 10 years. He had been able to avoid Saturday work assignments, but when budget cuts forced a reduction in force, Tepper began having difficulty. The Postal Service tried to facilitate Tepper by asking employees to volunteer for Saturday shifts or by dividing his route between other letter carriers. However, other letter carriers began to complain to management that the practice was not fair. Because the letters carriers belonged to a union, they brought their grievance to the union and through a union vote Tepper’s accommodation was terminated. In most cases, the Postal Service management agrees with union decision taken to a vote and concurred. (TEPPER vs. POTTER, No. 06-4182 (2007). “Tepper was told the accommodation was eliminated because “management could no longer cover [the plaintiff’s] route on Saturdays without putting undue hardship on other people.” It was recommended that he reserve some of his vacation time for Saturday absences. In addition, he was allowed to take time off without pay and to exchange days off with other carriers.” (Taken From Sixth Circuit Court Denies Employee's Religious Accomodation And Discrimination Claims, May 2013, http://www.plunkettcooney.com/ publications-145.html). In this case, we would win this case because our claim of “undue hardship” is valid.
…show more content…
The undue hardship argument proves even more valid, because as in Tepper v. Potter, this not only causes undue hardship financially for the company, but also undue hardship for company employees having to accommodate the employee’s religious schedule. Further, no additional claims alleging discrimination have been brought forward from any other employees alleging that the schedule change infringes on their religious beliefs or hinders their ability to freely practice their religion.
Recommendations:
1. Make sure management is aware that they must effectively communicate with employees in regard to upper management directives and decisions.
2. Maintain an open door policy for employees to discuss issues, By adopting an open door policy, employers can address workplace concerns before they become lawsuits.
3. Going forward, when interviewing prospective candidates for employment, the applicant must be made aware that shifts and work schedules may be scheduled during religious and/or holy days. 4. Make sure that HR counsels employees and new hires that any employment contract can be terminated with cause or reasonable notice. If an employee has received written notice of the projected changes and that employee refuses to accept changes her or she may not be entitled to claim a constructive dismissal. 5. Make sure employment agreements are carefully prepared when the company hires an employee. Future employment contracts must be worded to account for scheduling changes and documentation needs to be kept that the employees understand and accept this as a condition of employment. 6. Address and document employee related performance issues. This policy shouldbecome mandatory company wide, good record keeping and documentation will allow XYZ toys to maintain a readily accessible database and will be invaluable in HR or employee issues relating to investigation, arbitration or litigation. Careful documentation will provide information regarding decisions regarding an employee’s status and can illustrate that these decisions were made on the sole basis of job related performance References: Library Law – Construction Discharge, May 2013, http://www.mls.lib.il.us/ennounce/librarylaw/librarylaw_08_06.pdf). David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company, 337 F.3d 629 (6th Circuit, 2003). Killgore v. Thompson and Brock Management, Inc., 93 F.3d 752, 754 (11th Cir. 1996) Tepper vs. Potter, No. 06-4182 (2007) Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 1238, 1251, 876 P.2d 1022 (1994). Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).
The undue hardship argument proves even more valid, because as in Tepper v. Potter, this not only causes undue hardship financially for the company, but also undue hardship for company employees having to accommodate the employee’s religious schedule. Further, no additional claims alleging discrimination have been brought forward from any other employees alleging that the schedule change infringes on their religious beliefs or hinders their ability to freely practice their religion.
Recommendations:
1. Make sure management is aware that they must effectively communicate with employees in regard to upper management directives and decisions.
2. Maintain an open door policy for employees to discuss issues, By adopting an open door policy, employers can address workplace concerns before they become lawsuits.
3. Going forward, when interviewing prospective candidates for employment, the applicant must be made aware that shifts and work schedules may be scheduled during religious and/or holy days. 4. Make sure that HR counsels employees and new hires that any employment contract can be terminated with cause or reasonable notice. If an employee has received written notice of the projected changes and that employee refuses to accept changes her or she may not be entitled to claim a constructive dismissal. 5. Make sure employment agreements are carefully prepared when the company hires an employee. Future employment contracts must be worded to account for scheduling changes and documentation needs to be kept that the employees understand and accept this as a condition of employment. 6. Address and document employee related performance issues. This policy shouldbecome mandatory company wide, good record keeping and documentation will allow XYZ toys to maintain a readily accessible database and will be invaluable in HR or employee issues relating to investigation, arbitration or litigation. Careful documentation will provide information regarding decisions regarding an employee’s status and can illustrate that these decisions were made on the sole basis of job related performance References: Library Law – Construction Discharge, May 2013, http://www.mls.lib.il.us/ennounce/librarylaw/librarylaw_08_06.pdf). David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company, 337 F.3d 629 (6th Circuit, 2003). Killgore v. Thompson and Brock Management, Inc., 93 F.3d 752, 754 (11th Cir. 1996) Tepper vs. Potter, No. 06-4182 (2007) Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 1238, 1251, 876 P.2d 1022 (1994). Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).