Maalick Case Summary

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

Mr. Maalick’s supervisor showed clear evidence of being judgmental and discriminatory when he was hesitant to grant the time off that Maalick had requested for his religious purposes. Clive Jenkins’ choice of words “this religion of yours” shows clear judgment on Maalick and his Internationalism religion. Jenkins also found it amusing that Treton’s own employees were playing pranks and making jokes towards Maalick which shows complete unprofessionalism on the part of Mr. Jenkins and it also sheds a poor light on the company. Treton has a policy that they stand firm on which is absolutely no harassment will be shown towards anyone based on religion or color. Maalick’s supervisor failed to do his part as a leader to stop this behavior among his employees before it

When Maalick originally went to Marta Ford he spoke to her about the questions regarding his religion his co-coworkers had been asking. Rather than disregard his concerns she should have been proactive in addressing the issue rather than waiting until it got worse. She could have held a meeting with everyone in the facility and reminded them of the company policy regarding harassment. According to Gomez-Mejia, L., Balkin, D., & Cardy, R. (2012) companies that are proactive toward issues are better prepared to deal with future problems. Had she done this the issue likely would not have escalated to the point that it became a hostile work environment for Maalick. To prevent the situation from happening in the future Marta Ford could provide additional training to all employees and require annual retraining so that all employees and management are aware of company policies.

Maalick encountered many types of actions which could potentially infringe upon the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The first being the actions of his supervisor Jenkins, in raising concerns with, questioning the authenticity of, and making jokes about the new religion which Maalick was following. These same concerns were also raised by other employees after they heard he was taking time off to attend the five day intensive. After returning from the intensive Maalick was faced with his office being decorated with “voodoo style” dolls and pictures of Africa with strange symbols on them. He also continually received notes on his desk and car which referenced black magic and his own disappearance because of changing his name. He also encountered racial discrimination in the form of finding the following on his desk: “Prayer for Black People” chants and a book titled Mythical Practices from the Negro Experience.” The last act, and the one that made him finally report the activity, was an outside applicant from his supervisor’s church being hired over himself, even

seems to stand out the most. Everyone is left with a choice to make despite what society

This act was setup to address discrimination of protected classes (e.g. African Americans, Asian, Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and women). The part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that applies to employment decisions; mandates that employment decisions not be based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Gmoez-Mejia & Cardy, 2013).” Discrimination is about the making of distinctions; in the context of human resources, it is about the making of distinctions among people. There are two type of discrimination. Disparate treatment is when an employee is treated differently because of his protected status. Adverse impact is when the same standard is applied across the board; however it impacts a protected class more (Gmoez-Mejia & Cardy, 2013).In the case of #1-2013 adverse impact could apply to the shift changes that were implemented in January 2013. As the shift changes applied to all production employees. This could be construed as unintentional discrimination. However we haven’t had any other complaints to date.The company must reasonably accommodate religious beliefs or practices; unless it creates undue hardship (e.g. costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work). There are several ways

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.

At 14:32 Haring was arrested for OWI and fleeing the scene of an accident. He was taken away for booking and a Data Master Breathalyzer test.

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

Reasonable Accommodation & Religion: The law requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause difficulty or expense for the employer. This means an employer may have to make reasonable adjustments at work that will allow the employee to practice his or her religion, such as allowing an employee to voluntarily swap shifts with a co- worker.

Mavaddat focuses on the corporation code section to content that trial court erred in issuing the nuisance abatement injection against him. The reason is that section exempts him from personal liabilities for any judgment against or obligation of the limited liabilities company the management. The manger may agree to become personally responsible for the limited liability company debts and liabilities written contract or if the operating agreement or article so specify.

To rebut petitioner McCleskey's alibi defense at his 1978 Georgia trial for murder and a related crime, the State called Officer Evans, the occupant of the jail cell next to McCleskey's, who testified that McCleskey had admitted and boasted about the killing. On the basis of this and other evidence supporting McCleskey's guilt, the jury convicted him and sentenced him to death. After the State Supreme Court affirmed, he filed an unsuccessful petition for state habeas corpus relief, alleging, inter alia, that his statements to Evans were elicited in a situation created by the State to induce him to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel in violation of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 . He then filed his first

Bernard Williams’ The Makropulos Case, focuses on the topic of immortality, and the issues that would arise from being immortal. Williams’ uses the concept of the Makropulos play to refute the idea of immortality, because the protagonist kills themselves out of unbearable boredom from exhausting their categorical desires. Whereas John Martin Fischer rejects Williams’ view of immortality, due to the limiting constraints of his argument. Fischer asserts the immortal life would be livable, because it reflects a mortal life. In effect, I will further Fischer’s argument, in proposing the concept of categorical desires evolving, and then the significance of external factors occurring in society. Therefore, this essay will explain the significant

It is interesting, that Rinck was able to create an environment where the employees are close-knit and work together as a team to fill in gaps of each other’s weakness. This allows employees to grow with the support of their peers. Furthermore, this allows the company to ensure quality customer service to their employees while the employees are improving their weakness over time. Rinck was able to create a well round and balanced team. By being well rounded and balance this allowed the company to branch out over a variety of services instead of just focusing on one. In the end when Rinck provides consistent positive customer service they are improving their relationship with their current customers; which translates into returning customers

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