To approach this situation amicably I would recommend you to look at this summary based on the Act, to determine the approach to take.

According to  (Zachary, 2008 ) in law matters a constructive discharge is based on resignation of an employee, after  considering an approach taken by the employer to be  disagreeing with their way of life. In the toy company’s case, the employee had liable reason to file a law suit against the company based on what he/ she deemed as disregarding to  his/ her religious status. More so for a complainant to be successful, his or her allegations must fit the description of what’s forbidden in the act. The Company implemented new working policies which did not auger well with the past norms which facilitated freedom of worship and movement. The employee has a strong case against the company since the complaint falls under the category of aspects considered illegal in the work place.

Based on 1964 Act on Civil Right (Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2009) highlights that, bias attitude and deeds towards an individual on religion is unlawful in the employment and policy changing situations, within an organization. This is to protect the rights of the minority group, because in most cases they are overlooked, and their ways are merged with those of the majority. The act also prohibits recruitment processes and developmental activities within an organization that are discriminatory. Further, the act disregards any activity by the employer that does not hinder the conditions of the employees based on their beliefs, racial background and color.

In  reference to the study by ( Zachary, 2008), the employee in this case is a victim of religion bias since the policies were not present in the past but abruptly came into action thus disrupting the normalcy of  the employee’s life. The company may still defend its case based on not having discriminatory motive, but its initiatives were directed towards more growth to surpass the current one. More so, according to (Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2009) it is against the law to change the procedures of the organization with the existing employees views not kept in mind.  However, in a different scenario where the employee was seeking for a position in the organization, then the company’s personnel manager would have pointed out the policy changes before offering a position.

To avoid such incidence and prevent an organization from losing productive finances by paying for damages, it is wise to put in consideration of all the employees religious values and origin plus other aspects in the Act before incorporating new procedures in their daily practices (Zachary, 2008).

Based on the views relayed by (Zachary, 2010), I would recommend you to settle the case outside court to avoid time and financial wastage in the court processes. More so, the court may rule against the company, hence authorized to pay for damages whose amount may be used in organizational progressive work (Abramson, 2006).

In conclusion, to curb these problems the personnel department, in conjunction with the management should formulate policies and measure in dealing with personnel from varying religion, to avoid such cases from recurring. This can be achieved by conducting occasional employees’ evaluation to determine issues affecting them which could lower productivity, loss of valuable member of staff and financial obligations in paying damages.


Abramson, G.A. (2006). Commentary: religious practices in the workplace. The Daily Record, 1

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (2009).

Zachary, M.K. (2008). The real world of work and aggrieved employees. SuperVision, 69, 21-26.

Zachary, M.K. (2010). Labor law. Super Vision, 71, 22-26.


Written by