JDT Task1 Essays

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

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

A woman from South Carolina was denied unemployment benefits because of her religious beliefs. She was a Seventh Day Adventist who worshipped on Saturday. Her place of work originally only operated five days a week. Sherbert converted to Seventh Day Adventist and began to worship on Saturday. Her work then decided to be open six days a week including Saturday. She then refused to work on Saturday her day of worship and was fired because of it. After being fired she looked for a new job but could not find one that would accept

Constructive Discharge occurs when a company has created intolerable conditions for which an employee is to work. Unbearable conditions include but are not limited to discrimination or harassment, and negative

In the Turner v. Anheuser-Busch decision of 1994, the California Supreme Court states that constructive discharge "occurs when the employer's conduct effectively forces an employee to resign."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their religion. In fact, the law “requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee when that employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observance conflict with a work requirement unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship to the employer” (Fowler-Hermes & Gierbolini, 2014, p. 34).

Factual History: Ms. Samantha Elauf is a woman who is a practicing Muslim applied for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch Co., which is a national chain of clothing stores. Elauf was interviewed by the store’s assistant manager Heather Cooke, and her interview so went well that it appeared to Elauf that she was going to get the job. Heather Cooke, the store manager who interviewed Samantha liked her and recommended that she be hired. Cooke gave Elauf a rating, which qualified her to be hired, however, she was concerned that her headscarf would conflict with Abercrombie’s employee dress policy. The headscarf that she wore according to her religious obligations conflicted with the store’s “look policy”. Cooke turned to Randall Johnson, the district manager, and informed Johnson that she believed Elauf wore her headscarf because of her faith. She wanted to determine whether or not the headscarf was in violation of this policy. Randall Johnson informed Cooke that Elauf’s wearing headscarf would violate the “look policy”, and therefore that Elauf should not be hired. As a result, Elauf didn’t get hired by Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

Religion in the workplace can introduce some of the most challenging concerns employers have to tackle. Solving these issues involves an understanding of the law as well as attempting to balance the business 's needs with an employee 's desire to practice his or her religion. One of the most controversial conflicts when dealing with religion in the workplace is between an employee 's desire to take time off to acknowledge religious days or holidays and the potential reduction in productivity and profitability.

Today there are many people who are penalized and maybe even fired for their personal religious interfering with the company they work for beliefs. Kentucky clerk Kim Davis suspended and spent the night in jail for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

The employee quit willingly on his or her own accord and there was no constructive discharge and the employee will be unable to make prima facie case. In GOLDMEIER v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, the husband and wife were Sabbath-observant Orthodox Jews. They resigned from the insurance company where they were insurance agents because Allstate was unveiling a company wide policy where insurance offices needed to remain open on Friday evenings and Saturday morning. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed their complaints for failure to make a prima facie case, “Because they had not suffered discipline or discharge over this conflict, but instead resigned prior to the effectiveness of the new policy…” (GOLDMEIER V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 01-3888. (2003) The employee bears the burden of proving prima facie case against us and will fail. In this case, the plaintiff may pursue one of two theories. “[A] plaintiff in a Title VII religious discrimination action has two legal theories available for the prosecution of his claims: ‘disparate treatment’ and ‘failure to accommodate.’ ” Breech v. Alabama Power Co., 962 F.Supp. 1447, 1456 (S.D.Ala.1997), aff’d, 140 F.3d 1043 (11th Cir.1998);”In our case, the employee will be unable to prove either and will

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).

Employment Discrimination) Under the circumstances that the plaintiffs establishes a valid prima facie case the burden then transfers to the defendant and the Defendant must provide evidence of intent to accommodate otherwise, have a legal explanation on why the plaintiffs request would prove impossible without the business suffering. The Toledo v. Noble case points out that, “The Supreme Court has held that the intent and effect of this definition of ‘religion’ is to make it a violation of § 2000e-(a) (1) for an employer not to make reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, for the religious practice of the employees and prospective employees.” (Toledo, v. Noble Sysco, Inc.) Furthermore, the plaintiffs Claim that, the company is forbidding an extensive group of Muslim employees from practicing their religion at sundown, will thereupon be questioned. As a matter of fact, under title VII the Burdon would initiate on the plaintiff who would be required to prove that the defendant acted in an unlawful matter and discriminated against the plaintiff’s

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

The following recommendation is for Mr. Williams, President and CEO of Fluorescent Light Fixtures, from the human resources department with a recommendation to approve religious prayer accommodation three times a day for Mr. Suleiman, a Sunni Muslim, during his scheduled work shift at our plant in St Louis Missouri. Mr. Suleiman was recently hired and his first workday will be 31 August 2014, working the day shift from 0800 – 1700, Sunday through Thursday. During his initial orientation session that all new employees attended on 18 August 2014, he submitted his religious accommodation request to his assigned supervisor. The request is to be allowed to pray three times a day (noon, afternoon, sunset) for approximately 10 minutes a session. The following where reviewed by the human resource department, manufacturing department and our litigation department, in our review process for either recommending approval or disapproval of his request (1) The religious practice, (2) Federal and state laws, and (3) Undue burden or hardship for the company if approved. Let’s review each of these points in more detail.

•Religious Discrimination-Greg cannot work on weekends due to his religious beliefs. He may try to file discrimination because he cannot work on weekends due to his religious beliefs. This would be difficult to prove because the company has respected and have made