Lawsuit Against The Eeoc Discrimination Lawsuit

The company offered inconsistent versions of why Mr. Gill was terminated and who did the termination. They were indifferent to Mr. Gill’s concerns and did nothing to address those employees engaging in blatant racial harassment even after other black employees complained and, most damaging, the company retaliated against Mr. Gill when he complained by terminating his

Yet, religion has made employers not being protected under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Whenever a company has any religious beliefs, they are able to hire worker having the same religion values. Also, company can refuse hiring unmarried pregnant employees because of the violation of religious values. The above are not prohibited under the Title VII.

In the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Abercrombie & Fitch, a teenager Samantha Elauf filed against Abercrombie and Fitch’s company after she was denied employment at a store for “failing to accommodate” because she wore a hijab for religious practice. The incident first began in 2008 after Samantha’s interview with an employer at a store in Oklahoma. After she was informed of the reason why she wasn't hired, she filed a court case against the company for religious discrimination. In the District Court of Oklahoma, the court decided that Abercrombie’s “look policy” stating that employees must abide by dress code rules was perfectly reasonable. They agreed with the employer that Samantha must take off her hijab for work regardless

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

In 1964 the Civil Rights Act Title VII was passed. This law prohibited employers from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin (AAUW, 2016). The Act enforces that it is the obligation of the employer utilize reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of employees after the informs what his or her particular religious needs. The employer has a right to refuse a specific need if an undue hardship can be proven (LLI, 1992).

When Burlington moved Sheila from an easier position to a more labor extensive job that is considered a slight against her. Sheila was also accused of insubordination which was false. The false claim lead to her being suspended without pay for more than a month. Before this case, there had to be an adverse action that disadvantaged the employee due to discrimination. In this case, Sheila did not lose pay after her demotion, and was not fired from her job.

After her supervisor suspension, she was advised how her job as a fork lifter is cleaner than other jobs at the railroad and how employees complain about her not having seniority to operate the forklift versus other employees on the job. White was then moved from the fork lifter position to a laborer position but her pay and job description stayed the same; this lead her to filed a complaint with the EEOC of sexual harassment and retaliation due to her being moved to another position after complaining of sexual harassment. She then stated that another manager had her under constant surveillance and was checking her duties every day which lead her to file another retaliation complaint. She was then placed on a sixty suspension because there was some miscommunication about who she should ride with when leaving a job site; the reason for the suspension was for insubordination without pay. During the trial, it was revealed that no other employees complained about her operating the forklift and that the manager was trying to get rid of her.

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

With the existence of the provisions of Title VII the Burdon exists on the employer to be aware of all the laws that surround the work force whether it is public or private. According to Business today in any case of discrimination the plaintiff would have to file a claim with the work out an out of court settlement otherwise both parties will go to trial. It is important to note that, lower courts have set up methods for evaluating claims and determining who holds the burden of proof. In reference to the Toledo v. Noble case, the plaintiff must meet his burden by presenting a credible prima facie case of religious discrimination. A valid prima facie case is completed if the plaintiff’s religion restricts them from achieving an employment requirement

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).

In the article Religious-Discrimination Claims on the Rise by Melanie Trottman, it is stated that “the EEOC received 3,811 religion-based complaints in fiscal 2012, the second-highest level ever and just below the record 4,151 in 2011” (Trottman, 2013, p. 1). In another article Study: Workplace Religious Discrimination on the Rise by Mike Ward lists similar number of religion-based complaints. The article by Trottman mentions that the EEOC has filed religious-discrimination lawsuits against companies in the fast-food, hair-salon, aviation, hotel, retail, medical and health-services industries. A recent case that the article mentions is about Muslim woman who worked at Abercrombie and was fired by the manager because her hijab violated

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 lawsuit unfortunately, gives HR and recruiting a bad name. After reading the article I have to admit that I was both appalled, alarmed; however, I wasn’t shocked, though. Unfortunately, discrimination is too common.

This particular case involved Samantha Elauf, a Muslim, who applied for the job as a

In 2013, 38,539 claims of retaliation were reported to the EEOC, and it was the fifth year in row retaliation exceeded race discrimination as the most commonly reported form of discrimination. (Ho, 2014)