Human Resources Task 1

Task #1 – JDT2 Memo to CEO To CEO: As you may be assured, the assembly is currently oppositeness a lawsuit brought environing by a antecedent employee, Mr. X. He is claiming that inferior the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII he has been a martyr of “deductive perform” past we possess transitional the assembly’s inaugurated list skill to a filthy day rotational remove. Deductive perform or forcing an employee to submit by making the achievement environment so preposterous a serious special would not be talented to arrive (Equal Calling Convenience Commission, 2012) is illicit according to U. S. law. Mr. X states that past we possess past to the filthy day rotational list, his godly beliefs are substance infringed upon past he would possess to achievement on his godly “holy day”. According to U. S. law, the assembly does possess an bond to settle Mr. X’s desire. The law requires an master to reasonably settle an employee's godly beliefs or practices, regular doing so would inducement awkwardness or price for the master. (EEOC, 2012). I would approve to mould the subjoined applaudations in-reference-to this locality. First, gainsay any injustice doing grounded upon the subjoined: Mr. X disregarded to communicate anyone among the assembly of his godly foundation, in other words he did not substantiate one of the key contents of prima facie (Leagle, n. d. ). Had Mr. X made the assembly assured of his godly beliefs, it capability possess been likely to mould allowtalented accommodations for him. Mr. X was not subjected to preposterous stipulations during his calling, which is so another content. A deductive perform occurs when a special quits his or her job inferior state in which a serious special would handle that the stipulations of calling possess befit preposterous. (Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, 2002). If the Mr. X was untalented to suit to the serious accommodations put forth by the assembly, then the assembly would maintain “undue hardship” (Justia, 1982) by requiring the adventitious price and era to employ a present employee to secrete Mr. X’s remove. Secondly, to escape any legitimate issues encircling Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 I applaud implementing a “best practices” skill. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, “Employers should inoculate "best practices" to diminish the approvelihood of acuteness and to discourse impediments to correspondent calling convenience. ” (Society for Human Resource Management, 2011). Likely practices to be implemented could apprehend written criteria for hiring, standardized questioning, fit annals custody, skill grafting, publicized anti-harassment skill, allowing non-disruptive godly look and proactively comprised in likely engagement. (EEOC, 2012). References Prohibited Calling Policies/Practices. Retrieved from http://www. eeoc. gov/laws/practices/index. cfm EEOC. (2012). Best Practices for Eradicating Godly Acuteness 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 Perform Due to Godly 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