Lawsuit Against The Eeoc Discrimination Lawsuit

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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).

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

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

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

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)

The EEOC has reported an increase in complaints filed based on religion or national origin from 2,127 in 2001 to 2,541 in 2006. Of the cases filed in 2006, the EEOC has resolved 2,387 of them and recovered $5.7 million in monetary benefits for the people who placed the charges. (Morose)

The law protects people against being discriminated because of “race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age (40 or older), disability or their genetic information” (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). The EEOC argued that Abercrombie’s refusal to hire Elauf, because her headscarf went against company policy, violated Title VII which forbids an employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice can be accommodated without “undue hardship to the business”. Abercrombie argued that an employer cannot be held liable for failing to accommodate an applicant if said applicant did not notify the employer of the need for