Employment Accommodations: A Case Analysis

Many professionals recognize the benefits of assistive animals for people with physical disabilities. This includes seeing-eye dogs that are trained to alert owners to environmental hazards. Some policies may be hard to change, but are required if needed. One well known policy

In this particular case, Mr. Maalick received very clear and convincing racial and religious discrimination from both his supervisor and from his co-workers. The employees of Treton blatantly violated the Civil Rights Act and the Equal. Employment. Opportunity Commission. These acts do not allow, under any circumstances, discrimination based on the idea of race, color, sex, religion or age (The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | National Archives, n.d.).

Maalick encountered religious discrimination on several occasions while at work. The first instance was when he requested vacation for a religious event and his manager was reluctant to grant the request because of his religious beliefs. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employers are required to “reasonably accommodate the

This act was setup to address discrimination of protected classes (e.g. African Americans, Asian, Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and women). The part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that applies to employment decisions; mandates that employment decisions not be based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Gmoez-Mejia & Cardy, 2013).” Discrimination is about the making of distinctions; in the context of human resources, it is about the making of distinctions among people. There are two type of discrimination. Disparate treatment is when an employee is treated differently because of his protected status. Adverse impact is when the same standard is applied across the board; however it impacts a protected class more (Gmoez-Mejia & Cardy, 2013).In the case of #1-2013 adverse impact could apply to the shift changes that were implemented in January 2013. As the shift changes applied to all production employees. This could be construed as unintentional discrimination. However we haven’t had any other complaints to date.The company must reasonably accommodate religious beliefs or practices; unless it creates undue hardship (e.g. costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work). There are several ways

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.

First, the ex-employee NEVER requested a reasonable accommodation. Title VII requires a person to make said request without the request creating an undue hardship to the company. An employee must inform the company of the need for an accommodation based on a disaccord between the person’s religious belief or practices and their work duties. The relevance is that the law requires the individual to request an accommodation. According to the information cited, this individual made no such request.

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

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

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?

The Civil Rights act of 1964 along with Title VII gives employees the option to sue business owners based on color, race, sexual orientation, and religion. This act, rules on the fact, that individuals can take action if a discrimination or harassment issues happens at the employer’s workplace. It expands Civil Rights statues to provide more protection against people who are victimized due to discrimination. It sets the guidelines for job related issues due to disparate impact or treatment issues. However, this act does not assure that everyone who faces discrimination will be employed because frankly he is a minority. If it is felt that there is a possibility of

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

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