Employment Law Case Studies

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal mandated to mediate and adjudicate a variety of employment and labour relations-related matters under a number of Ontario Statutes.

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.

There are many employment laws out there but ill discuss about three of them and what are the consequences if the company did not comply. The employment laws I will discuss are the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. My next topic would be how an organization might structure their policies, practices and culture to ensure compliance.

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

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

There are no set EEOC guidelines to define religious harassment; therefore, steps are not being taken to avoid or prevent religious harassment in the workplace. This was seen in the case Zayed v. Apple Computers when Zayed’s

Businesses have been the heart of economic growth since the beginning of the United States. Not only has businesses been at the center of this nation but also freedom of religion as well. In this case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., its how the business (Abercrombie & Fitch), denies Samantha Elauf the job at that store because she wore a head scarf because she was a practicing Muslim.

Under the title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination. Discrimination of basis of sex, race, color, national origin, or religion. If a profit corporation have religious beliefs they will be able to argue they have the right to side-step Title VII and, for example, hire only those who sign a “statement of faith” or share the same religious

The laws surrounding the way a company should handle religious practices is defined by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The EEOC (n.d.) states, “The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment,

Facts of the case: Imagine you are an HR manager and your boss and owner of the company, Bill, comes to you suspecting his assistant, Paige, is stealing money from the company. Bill would like a polygraph test conducted to see if Paige is stealing from the company. He would also like you to conduct electronic surveillance on Paige’s work e-mail for anything suspicious.

Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion (or lack of religious belief) in hiring, firing, or any other terms and conditions of employment. The law also prohibits job segregation based on religion, such as assigning an employee to a non-customer contact position because of actual or feared customer preference. In addition, the Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees, unless doing so

1. DePeters, Co. is sued for sex discrimination on the grounds that too few women are hired because fewer women than men achieve passing scores on a required manual dexterity and physical strength test. DePeters, Co. offers in its defense that even though fewer women score high enough on the test, a greater percentage of the passing women are hired. The company maintains that, as a result, the percentage of women in the workforce mirrors the percentage of available women in the labor pool. A group of women who took the test and failed file suit. Explain the basis for the cause of action, and analyze the merits of the cause of action, employer defenses, and likely outcome. Support your response with applicable

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 127 (UK Court of Appeal), Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968) 120 CLR 516 (High Court)

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