Findings: Constructive discharge as a legal concept:
This refers to when the law treats an employee’s resignation as a discharge that was involuntary. This law requires an intolerable discriminatory or retaliatory working condition for the employee to have resigned or in this sense being discharged.

With regards to XYZ Toy Company’s law suit a constructive discharge is only relevant if the former employee can justify how extreme working conditions aided the resignation. In this case, the former employee claimed that enforcement of the company’s new policy and shift work is discriminatory because the policy requires employees to work on a religious holy day. The claim on religious discrimination is what created an intolerable working condition, thus lead to a resignation which provided relevance to the constructive discharge.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
The areas covered under this title that are relevant to the company’s law suit includes: Section 703. A.1 states that it is unlawful for employment practice to discriminate employees based on their race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Section 704.A also states that it is unlawful for employment practice to discriminate against any individual who has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation or hearing under this title. Section 701.J requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance or practice unless it will pose a hardship on the employer’s business ("Title vii of," ).

The before-mentioned sections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are relevant to this case since the former employee’s claim is in regards to being discriminated against religion and having to work on a religious holy day.
Company response to the employee’s charge of constructive discharge:
Employers are required by Title VII to accommodate religious beliefs that are “sincerely held.” It is assumed that the employee established a prima facie case that shows burden of proof that the new schedule requirements conflicts with his/her religious beliefs. However, there is not enough evidence given to show that the employer was notified of such conflicts, nor is there any information on any actions taken to lessen the burden or if there were any disciplinary actions taken for not complying with the new requirements. In this case XYZ Toy Company should provide legitimate nondiscriminatory evidence for this law suit in litigation. For example, if the employee’s performance deteriorated after the new schedule was mandated then the disciplinary actions taken should reflect that undue burden placed on the company.

EEOC v. JBS USA, LLC case supports the recommendation for litigation because JBS USA, LLC could not accommodate breaks for religious purposes since it would cause undue