The Reasonable Person Test Best Serve The Purposes Of The Law Case Study
2.Under the Specific Intent Test, or minority view, the plaintiff has to show proof that not only the working conditions were made intolerable, but also that the employer created the intolerable conditions with the specific intent of forcing the employee to resign. The minority view suggests that the employer did not wish for the employee to resign, rather stay and comply with the requests/new requirements.
If conditions are found to have been tolerable, the claim will fail under either test. In the given scenario, the work schedule policy change effects all production workers. Even if the change is determined to have made conditions intolerable for the employee in question, the change was not made with the intent to force any employee to resign. Therefore, it is not a constructive discharge. …show more content…
Suders (2004), “A plaintiff alleging constructive discharge in violation of Title VII, the Court of Appeals stated, must establish: ‘(1) he or she suffered harassment or discrimination so intolerable that a reasonable person in the same position would have felt compelled to resign … ; and (2) the employee’s reaction to the workplace situation–that is, his or her decision to resign–was reasonable given the totality of circumstances… .”
2.Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination in employment in any business on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII also prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose such unlawful discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Title VII. The individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or he or she could face the possibility of losing the right to file a lawsuit.
3.In Johnson v. Bunny Bread Co., “the plaintiff claimed that the ‘close monitoring and harsh treatment’ that he received from his supervisors formed the basis of a constructive discharge.” All other employees were treated in the same manner. The court upheld the finding that the plaintiff’s handling was not done with the intent to force him to resign. “Certainly the employer did not wish to force all of its employees to