Nantiya Ruan Case Analysis

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

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.

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

“When "religious freedom" gets invoked in the United States, it can be a mixed bag. It can be a term legitimately be used to describe the right of Americans to express their faith how they choose and associate accordingly, provided they don’t violate the rights of others. Or it could be invoked

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

The First Amendment guarantees U.S citizen with basic freedoms such as religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. In the 2010 case between Salazar and Buono, the First Amendment was put on trial in the Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court examined whether a religious cross, meant to honor World War I Veterans, violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Frank Buono, a former preserve employee, filed the lawsuit to get rid of the religious cross in the reserve permanently, stating that it was built on federal land thus creating a sense of favoritism of one religion over another in government. By establishing favoritism towards Christianity the U.S government violated the Establishment Clause. This paper analyzes the rhetorical situation between the governments interference within religion

While there are specificities of the case that can help determine the individualized outcome of this particular case, the foundations of the legal problems in the case can be expanded to greater problems of religious definition in the United States. As shown through The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, religious theory is vital to the continuation of religious freedom protections, for better or worse, in the United States. The case that is highlighted by Sullivan revolves around the ability for citizens to use religious items around burial sites that extend beyond the city of Boca Raton’s regulatory codes. When some of these religious items around the burial sites were not permitted by the city, a group of citizens sued the city on the grounds that the city was preventing actions protected by the religious freedom clauses of the US Constitution. This case, like many others involving religious freedom decisions, required a real definition of religion. Religious theory was imperative to the outcome of this case. Sullivan writes, “If religion was whatever anyone said it was, the statute was unworkable and [Judge Ryskamp] did not feel it was his place to simply dismiss an act of the Florida legislature as nonsense. Religion therefore had to be measured and bounded by an expert test…”(Sullivan 105). These tests were determined by various religious scholars, including Sullivan, that testified in this case. Religious theory,

Businesses have been the heart of economic growth since the beginning of the United States. Not only has businesses been at the center of this nation but also freedom of religion as well. In this case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., its how the business (Abercrombie & Fitch), denies Samantha Elauf the job at that store because she wore a head scarf because she was a practicing Muslim.

Religious difference has been a question not just for theological schools and religious institutions but, increasingly for some businesses and corporations, offices and factories. In the past ten years the equal employment opportunity commission, which considers workplace complaints that may violate the civil rights act, has reported a 31 percent rise in complaints of religious discrimination in the workplace.

Freedom of religion has been a right guaranteed to individuals in society. However, it is ultimately just an idea put in place that is disregarded as something insignificant. The workplaces of many people choose to deny employees the right to express their religion freely, for fear it may leave a bad image for the company. It is apparent that freedom of religion is not a strong right as many people may have originally thought it was. The limits of this right have been tested for decades and continue to be an issue for people today. Freedom of religion may go on to exist as a right in society, but when investigating deeper into this privilege, it is evident that it is merely an idea taken for granted.

The laws surrounding the way a company should handle religious practices is defined by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The EEOC (n.d.) states, “The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment,

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).

The American Dream: whatever the new and improved thing is in American life, whether that be fame and fortune or the newest and latest piece of technology. People try to achieve this dream but are stopped by many and various obstacles, especially discrimination. In discussions of discrimination, one controversial issue has been the topic of religious discrimination and freedom of religion in society, and in the workplace. What exactly defines religious discrimination? According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions,

The number of Federal lawsuits filed by inmates dealing with religious rights has increased significantly in the past several years. At the beginning of the 2000’s there were 43 lawsuits that were filed dealing with inmates and religious rights. In the late 2000’s there were 116 lawsuits filed. Which then later led to a whopping 1,588 in the years 2010-2014. Just within the first 8 months of last year there were 212 new religious lawsuits filed (Turner 76). Religious freedom has become a big epidemic in the Justice System. Harry R. Dammer Ph.D., an associate Professor along with Chair of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Niagara University, stated “Many of the leading court cases that provide current guidelines for the practice of religion in American Prisons were decided during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Until then, legal issues related to religious inmates were rarely brought up before the courts” (N.P.).

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