Interactive Process Of Conflict Analysis

1. Maalick experienced religious segregation on a few events while at work. The primary occurrence was the point at which he asked for get-away for a religious occasion and his director was hesitant to allow the solicitation as a result of his religious convictions. As indicated by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 managers are required to sensibly suit the religious practices of a representative or planned worker, unless to do as such would make an undue hardship upon the business. Sensible housing may incorporate adaptability in planning, work reassignments, or intentional substitutions. Despite the fact that the supervisor in the long run conceded the get-away demand since he doubted Maalick about it when it would not bring about the organization undue hardship would be viewed as religious separation. After Maalick changed his name he encountered prodding about his religious decisions from his associates and his chief. This made an extremely threatening workplace for Maalick. The misuse that Maalick persevered is viewed as religious segregation and provocation. It is unlawful to disturb somebody on account of their religious convictions. As indicated by the Federal Equal

Employers and employees can not make harassing or discriminatory comments towards others on the basis of religion

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

Evangelical Christians who insist on their right to practice their faith in the workplace should also respect other people’s rights to do the same, according to a pastor and former county manager.

In another case, a restaurant called Sorrano’s Mexican Restaurant was sued in 2002 by Terra Neave(manager)for not accommodating to religious belief. She led a bible study after work and two of her subordinates attended. According to company policy manager are not suppose to socialize with subordinates,to prevent sexual harassment. The company offered to transfer her to another location, she refused and continued to lead bible study with her subordinates. With this type of substantial evidence she lost the case. In these two cases our rights were upheld and justice was served according to our civil rights laws(Luci Scott, Jan 2009).

“This is not about his religious views but about his ability to lead a diverse work force. It’s unfortunate that this had to happen. I feel the mayor has done the right thing to ensure all employees are treated fairly.”

Maalick, a minority with a unique religion, endured inappropriate workplace behaviors over time culminating in a hostile work environment. Although federal law and corporate governance prohibited workplace discrimination and harassment, it is clear that the Treton office in Chenworth, Kansas had a prolonged atmosphere of ridicule, mistreatment, racial harassment, and religious discrimination. Contrary to the protections afforded in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, office personnel defied corporate policy and federal law by openly displaying unacceptable workplace behaviors (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2016). In this regard, workers perpetuated religious mocking and ridicule with head nodding and laughter towards Maalick’s new

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution sanctioned all 50 States to protect all citizens, by requiring that all citizens are treated according to the Bill of Rights, by protecting “the inalienable rights of all its citizens” (Fisher, 2013, pg. 3). Although, the inalienable rights of men are projected differently, both from a Biblical perspective and a Constitution, Declaration, there are or will be several morals violations among citizens that must be addressed. Particularly, in this case on Religious Discrimination and Racial Harassment in the Workforce.

“As recently as September 2010, Muslim workers have reported that they have been victims of employment discrimination. Workers report name calling by co-workers, such as ‘terrorist’ or ‘Osama,’ and complain that employers bar them from wearing the headscarf or participating in prayer times” (Moore 93). This level of disrespect should not be tolerated as

I feel employment discrimination concerns can be addressed quite simply in the religious workplace by implementing an organizational policy addressing ministerial exceptions and first amendment rights in relation to respecting an establishment of religion with state. Through ongoing training with staff covering religious rights in the workplace I would give detail and clear guidance on how to notify individuals and supervisor to make a discrimination complaint without retaliation.

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.

In a Ted Talks video given by Kathy Lund Dean, she goes on to talk about discrimination on religion, particularly in the work place. Religious discrimination rates have gone up significantly since the attack on the Twin Towers. With the stereotype of all Muslims are terrorists, people have been more intolerant of people that belong to the Islamic faith (Dean). Most of the time these actions of intolerance get swept under the rug, they get covered up and never really talked about or fixed. That is exactly what happens to these occurrences. They are reported but never resolved. They are known about, but never talked about. They are occurring every day, but nothing gets done about it. These daily incidences inhibit the reaching of the American Dream. If you get harassed and tormented and teased at your job constantly, are you really going to stay? It can prevent career growth based on ridicule and that is a problem in our society. In an article titled Your Faith May Cost You Your Next Job, written by Bradley Wright, his colleague, Michael Wallace, and him organized an experiment. They created four résumés. Two men and two women. After they created the four different résumés they added names with no religious or ethnicity background. Then they made 9,600 copies of the original four. Then they put various religions on it: control group (no listed religion), Pagan, Jewish, Evangelical Christian, Catholic, Wallonian,

As a means to better understand equal employment opportunity and HRM, one can examine the reasonable accommodations employers must make in regards to religion and disability. In regards to such, some of the accommodations can be described, the agency responsible for such enforcement can be examined, and two specific private sector workplace examples of religious and disability accommodation can be noted. Through the examination of these concepts one can gain a better understanding of equal employment opportunity and HRM.

The adult student has learned that over the last decade, religious discrimination claims have raised more rapidly compared to most other protected categories under the Civil Rights Act. Employment discrimination occurs in a variety of ways, and there are a number of methods for seeking compensation through the courts. According to Bethel (2017), Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe. Specifically, it is when adherents of different religions (or denominations) are treated unequally, either before the law or in institutional settings such as employment or housing (p.66). However, this paper will discuss the confusion over, what is wrong and what is right and what constitutes religious principles in the work force. In doing so, this student will also discuss the challenges and the practical effects of religious discrimination in the workplace.

What is religious discrimination? According to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d..), “it is the unfair treatment of a person or employee based on their religious beliefs or by association with people with different religious or moral belief.” A law was established to prohibit the discrimination of employee’s belief “because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other conditions of employment” known as Title VII Civil Right Act of 1964. (Anti-Defamation Law, 2012). This allows the employee to express openly and practice religion in public in the vicinity of the workplace. This law requires the employer to provide reasonable accommodations for employees unless undue hardship occurs. For example, the accommodations that can cause undue hardship are cost, unsafe working environment, compromise other personnel religious beliefs, and increase workload on other employees (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website).