Argument To Violate Grooming Policy

Some have been criticized as harassing bearded workers." it just isn't acceptable to let yourself go.

This says it is unlawful to discriminate against people at work because of their religion or belief. The regulations also cover training that is to do with work.

Under the first amendment right a person has the right to exercise whatever religion that they so choose. And that is why Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came along is there to protect all employees that are and may be discriminated by employers, which means that an employer should not refuses to hire a candidate based on their religious beliefs or practices, or they cannot refuse to promote an employee, or adjust their rate of pay on their religion, they must be treated exactly as any other employee within the company, they should not be discriminated or be segregated against. Title VII also protects employees against employers or employees making any prejudice remarks against them. Employees are protected by both Title V11 and

In the article Religious-Discrimination Claims on the Rise by Melanie Trottman, it is stated that “the EEOC received 3,811 religion-based complaints in fiscal 2012, the second-highest level ever and just below the record 4,151 in 2011” (Trottman, 2013, p. 1). In another article Study: Workplace Religious Discrimination on the Rise by Mike Ward lists similar number of religion-based complaints. The article by Trottman mentions that the EEOC has filed religious-discrimination lawsuits against companies in the fast-food, hair-salon, aviation, hotel, retail, medical and health-services industries. A recent case that the article mentions is about Muslim woman who worked at Abercrombie and was fired by the manager because her hijab violated

You have raised some great points as to J.C. encounter of unlawful religious discrimination. As you said J.C. tried to compromise with his employer by packing or wearing his dreads in a neat and professional matter. But as a result his employer refused which resulted in J.C. losing his job. I agree with your analysis that the company's actions toward J.C. is violation of Title VII. However I also believe that it is a violation of his first amendment right. As a citizen of this so called great land, we are allowed to practice our religion and face no form of discrimination. This case not only describes a violation against Title VII but also the first amendment

Despite the reasonable intent, Abercrombie and Fitch crossed a line when they refused to allow some leeway when it was for a religious cause, much like Trans World Airlines in the TWA v. Hardison case. Trans World Airlines fired Hardison after he refused coming into work on Saturday due to his religious beliefs. He sued TWA and won, claiming his religious beliefs were being sabotaged by unjust work hours. These cases are alike in the way that the employers declined to accommodate to an employee's religious needs, excusing their actions by saying the person in question didn’t follow company

For being a country founded on being free we are mostly a Christian country. Still, we must consider other faiths. Some faiths involve praying at certain times every day, others include your appearance. Though, sometimes carrying on with your faith can be an access point for easier attacks. “Hair on the head is more plausible to hide the contraband than a half inch beard, and then some are true of an inmate’s clothing and shoes” (Wolf 5). With the risks in following a religion we must kind in mind the safety of those around them.

Under Title VII, I would say this company is violating the law. It is stated in the textbook that under Title VII, “employers are required to reasonably accommodate religion, unless doing so would impose undue hardship.” (Walsh, Pg. 358). By having the employee respect her sacred religion and wearing her hijab, would not cause the company any costly, extensive, or detrimental accommodations.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that all employers must make practical accommodation to hold spiritual beliefs of their employee absent unwarranted hardship, therefore it is not considered discrimination (EEOC.org). By offering her a position within the classification department I feel follows Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she was able to wear her khimar without the potential for injury while mingling with

This religious discrimination not only demonstrates the cultural problems that are present at the Midwest facility, but for the entire corporation. Even though Martra Ford handled the situation correctly and effectively once she was aware of the problem, other changes must be made to Treton’s EEO training and reporting procedures. Ideally, Maalick’s formal complaints will be dealt with quickly and disciplinary actions distrusted accordingly. Once this issue is resolved Judith Dixon and Martha Ford should determine how to solve the underlying issues that this scenario

Though initially considered a lost, this case paved the way for other requests that would be heard and orchestrate change in regulations. Requests are now made and approved to allow apparel and grooming accommodated therefore respecting religion and customs within the constraints of regulations and code.

I think that in the case of Mr. Polk and his religious hairstyle belief, he should have a right to be allowed to violate the grooming policy because he has a religious proclamation with the sanctity of his dreadlocks. He grew his hair out because of his religious views and I think if he was denied this right that it could probably be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That would mean that the company was discriminating against him and would not bend the rules for his religious beliefs. Mr. Polk should be given a special exemption from this rule that the Fedex policy holds. Bethel University (n.d.) says that “FedEx ordered Polk to cut his hair or be assigned to a job with no direct customer contact and lower pay. He

Barb: I found an article about a discrimination case against Consolidation Coal Company where they were found guilty of violating an employee’s right to their religious beliefs under Title VII. After 35 years with the company, they began to require their “employees to use a newly installed biometric hand scanner to track employee time and attendance” (Court Awards Over Half Million Dollars Againdt Consol Energy/Consolidation Coal in EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit, 2015). She told her employer that this practice violated his “religious beliefs as an Evangelical Christian” (Court Awards Over Half Million Dollars Againdt Consol Energy/Consolidation Coal in EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit, 2015). The company didn’t seek an alternative

Orthodox Jews live their lives according to their strict Biblical principles; they live in close-knit groups or clusters and reject the ways of modern society as told by (Wertheimer, 2014). The Orthodox Jewish religion requires married women to cover their hair. The Orthodox Jewish biblical law considers a woman’s hair is the essence of their beauty; therefore married women do not usually show their hair as not to attract attention from men. Orthodox Jews attend church on Saturdays and they observe the certain religious holidays such as Rosh Hashanah. Some Orthodox Jewish men wear beards as a sign of their faith. According to their religious practice they cannot use a razor to shave so it is easier to let their beards grow long as told by (Lissner, 2010). Our company dress code states that hats or coverings of the head are not permissible and neatly trimmed beards and mustaches, not more than 1 inch long are permissible. Head dress that is worn for religious beliefs or

Continental terminating J.C.’s employment because of his religious practices is unlawful religious discrimination. J.C.’s Rastafarianism religion required him to wear dreadlocks. J.C. offered to wear his dreadlocks in a neat, businesslike fashion or to wear them under a hat. Continental denial of religious accommodation is the most common form of workplace religious discrimination. Title VII makes it illegal for Continental to discriminate against J.C. because of his religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment, such as promotions, raises, and other job opportunities. Title VII also required Continental to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of J.C. In this case, Continental created an undue hardship.