Discrimination In The Burdon: Legal 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

Identify and describe the specific issues that Maalick encountered in the workplace. Do the actions of other workers at Trenton represent discrimination and harassment? What elements of laws are important for Trenton to consider?

It is somewhat surprising that employers continue to violate employment laws dealing with discrimination. One case, Catterson v. Marymount Manhattan College, litigated and settled in 2013, was especially egregious. According to the EEOC (2013), the college had refused,

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.

Second, in 2013 the 10th Circuit Court ruled, an employee must communicate the disaccord between a religious practice and a work rule. The Court determined that an employee understands whether the practice observed by the employer is predicated in an inflexible religious practice. (10th Circuit Court, 2013) The relevance of this ruling is that only the employee can determine whether or not the employer is being inflexible in

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

Title VII’s fundamental underlying value of non-discrimination is represented in the Bible in many different verses, such as Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Biblegateway, 1993). As believers, we know the world is truly on race – the human race. Each and everyone of us are distinctively created by God. God does not discriminate and to do so is contrary to the worldview of a Christian. When at work, I apply this Biblical worldview to the work I do. A person’s

The law clearly states that appellant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case, and sustains that burden by showing that he/she holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; that he has informed his employer of the conflict; and that he was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement.

upon an employee's religion. This means, that generally an employer has to give their workers

The definition of religion can be subjective and vary from person to person. According to Gregory (2011), as a society, more and more employees are wishing to demonstrate their faith while at work. He further notes that this will continue as individualism and self-expression are more embraced by todays millennials. In addition, Gregory shows that the filing of discrimination based lawsuits rose 75% between 1997 and 2008. Because of this, Cintas Corporation must create a fair policy that meets the legal obligations of the company.

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

Religious difference has been a question not just for theological schools and religious institutions but, increasingly for some businesses and corporations, offices and factories. In the past ten years the equal employment opportunity commission, which considers workplace complaints that may violate the civil rights act, has reported a 31 percent rise in complaints of religious discrimination in the workplace.

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