Consolidation Coal Company: Discrimination Case Study

In “Working it Out” by Diana Eck, she writes about religious oppression in the workplace. The examples she gives on the many ways people have been fired, or the ways in which people's faiths have been compromised, reiterates that the amendment that states freedom of religion in the United States, is

Federal law and corporate governance prohibit discrimination and harassment, and Maalick, a minority with a unique religion, encountered inappropriate behaviors in the workplace. It is clear that the Treton office in Chenworth, Kansas had a prolonged atmosphere of ridicule, mistreatment, racial harassment, and religious discrimination. Contrary to protections afforded in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, office personnel openly displayed inappropriate workplace behaviors and defied corporate policy and federal law (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2016). With Title VII regulating adverse actions against a person based on race and religion, workers perpetuated religious mocking and ridicule with head nodding and laughter to Maalick’s new religion.

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.

The United States is one of the most culturally and religiously diverse countries in the world. The founding fathers of the United States wanted to ensure that its people would have the ability to practice their religion with no threat of persecution. In order to accomplish the goal of religious freedom and continue to ensure that all people of any religion would be free to practice their religion, the United States passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits an employer from discriminating based on the religious views of its employees. As the citizens of the United States spend a large amount of time in their places of employment, religious practices that these employees feel are necessary for the true observance of their religion must be accommodated by the employers. This law contends that in cases where the accommodation of religious practices of its employees does not create undue hardships, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for employees to practices the beliefs of their religion. As the demographics of the United States continues to change with more religiously diverse people immigrating to the country, employers are coming under more pressure to ensure they are taking all possible precautions to accommodate the religious practices of its employees. These precautions are important as the once an employee has established a bona fide complaint of religious discrimination, the burden of proof then falls on the employer to prove they

In the supreme court case United States v. Lee the ruling stated that a company’s or employer’s personal religious beliefs do not allow a company an exemption from business health

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

Firstly, one of the main facts of this case is the fact that the company refused to hire a covered woman due to her religious practices and beliefs. According to the New York Times website, Mrs. Elauf felt, as she states it in Liptak’s article, discriminated and “disrespected because of her religious beliefs” (Liptak, 2015). She explains how the company action results in a religious discrimination which is prohibited by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Samantha also declares that the denial of her being hired is a result of an unequal treatment against her due to her religious beliefs although she is an American citizen. All Samantha Elauf tried to do was get a job in a company where she is used to be a customer as she enjoys fashion and thought she would receive the same treatment another American uncovered woman would receive as they are both American citizens thus should receive equal treatment no matter what the professional situations are. Yet, she was refused a job she could have obtained in

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

Under the ministerial exception of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, can a religiously affiliated organization, such as religious schools, discriminate based on religion when hiring employees, such as teachers, including those who deal with non-religious tasks, such as teaching a secular subject?

In 1964 the Civil Rights Act Title VII was passed. This law prohibited employers from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin (AAUW, 2016). The Act enforces that it is the obligation of the employer utilize reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of employees after the informs what his or her particular religious needs. The employer has a right to refuse a specific need if an undue hardship can be proven (LLI, 1992).

Yet, religion has made employers not being protected under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Whenever a company has any religious beliefs, they are able to hire worker having the same religion values. Also, company can refuse hiring unmarried pregnant employees because of the violation of religious values. The above are not prohibited under the Title VII.

One of the main viewpoints discussed in the article was that with the past court cases, they have never discovered a for-profit corporation and/or organization to be religious. And that if they let every company who refuses to abide by this law be exempt because they are a religious company, the government would fall apart. Walter Dellinger, who was a part of the Clinton administration, explained that the employees of hobby lobby shouldn’t have to share the same beliefs as the owners of the company because it’s not like the company is a religious corporation it’s only the owners and they cannot make them feel the same way as them because they are only employees. But Paul Clement, who was a part of the Bush Administration, says that, that is not

Issue: Is an employer in violation of Title VII if they refuse to hire an applicant or discharge an employee based on a religious observance. Even when the applicant or employee fails to provide the employer, through explicit notification, of the applicant’s or employee’s need for a religious accommodation?

As you are aware, a lawsuit was recently filed by a former employee. The suit against us is being filed under the constructive discharge section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In essence, the section states that we made working conditions completely intolerable for the employee, through some form of hostility, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or humiliation (Sommerville, 2007). Said employee quit after our policy change on expanded production floor operation hours. The former employee maintains that we made working conditions intolerable because we would be forcing him or her to work on a religious holy day. The key in this particular case, of course, is that the former employee is alleging religious discrimination

Religion in the workplace can bring up some of the most difficult issues employers have to face. Resolving these issues requires understanding the law and balancing the business's needs with an employee's desire to practice his or her religion. One of the most contentious conflicts is between an employee's desire to take time off and the potential reduction in productivity and profitability. In ruling on Title VII religion cases, the courts have held that employers aren't required to accommodate employees' religious activities when it involves increased financial costs, transferring supervisory personnel or employees from other departments resulting in inefficiency, or discriminating against other employees or violating seniority systems. Accommodations that don't constitute undue hardship to the employer include voluntary substitutions or employee "swaps," flexible work schedules, floating or optional holidays, staggered work hours, and allowing employees to make up lost time. Transfers and job changes also are options if they don't cause reduced efficiency or