Relationship Analysis Between Statutes and Case Law

Religion is defined as A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual being (Mifflin). It is known that many of our behaviours are determined by the presence of religion in one's life. Religion implants its principles in a person and their attitudes, personality, morals and ethics and alters it to a great extent. This

In a perfect world, there would be no need for laws protecting people from employment discrimination; however, in this often-unjust world, discrimination continues. Hence, federal and state protections exist for certain groups of people sharing common characteristics. Some of these protected classes are race, religion or creed, gender, and disability (EEOC, 2015). In the legal case of Ritter v. Auntie Ruth’s Furry Friends (ARFF), Ritter claimed she became the target of age discrimination after the business was sold to two people under the age of thrty. The following is an overview of the case that highlights how ignorance of or willful disregard of the rights of others can be a costly mistake. While laws are unlikely to change the minds of those who seek to discriminate, those breaking the law must be held accountable.

129 S. Ct. 2658, 2664 174 L. Ed. 2d 490, 505. This vague standard will undoubtedly spur more litigation as employers struggle to decipher what “a strong basis in evidence” exactly means. Furthermore, employers must now establish a Title VII claim against themselves before they can act.

Before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the only substantive protection from discrimination for United States citizens was the 14th Amendment, which states, “equal protection of the laws.” Seminal cases under this law include, Brown v. Board of Education, and more recently, Bush v. Gore (Cornell University Law School, 2016). Despite the 14th Amendment, discrimination based on race, sex, and age went uncontested as it was often difficult to prove and no specific protections existed. Hence, as part of the Civil Rights Act, the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) allowed federal law to establish protected classes (The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2016). As a person who falls under the protected class of age, this paper focuses on age discrimination and the potential ethical issues for employers involving this protected class. While most employers respect and follow employment laws, age discrimination is more common than many realize and can be devastating for the individual and financially problematic for the employer.

Individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including intentional exclusion from certain work areas, that denies them the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities that guarantees success in the society. To guarantee success there is expectation regarding the relationship between the employer and employee, giving close attention to the various factors that should be considered to make the person with disability successful. This paper outlines the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the terms and conditions covering employees and employers as stated in Title 1. Title 1, as amended by the ADA amendment 2008, states that no covered entity will discriminate against a qualified individual based on disability (EEOC, 2015).

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

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on : Race, Color, Sex, Religion, and National Origin with respect to employment. “Specifically, it states that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer” (Dressler, 2015, p. 28). “It established the concept of protected classes; those individuals who are protected from discrimination by the legal system. It prohibits discrimination in all employment practices. Title VII makes it unlawful to limit or classify employees in any way that deprives them of employment opportunities or hampers their career progression when that classification is based on their protected status” (SHRM). Title VII also established the EEOC Commission (EEOC) and applies to employers with 15 or more employees and most labor unions.

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.

Sir, it brings to mind a particular discrimination case, the “Dunlap Versus Tennessee Valley Authority; the district court found the Tennessee Valley Authority guilty of disparate treatment

Discrimination in the work, purposely or accidentally, not just harms the workers’ work knowledge, but it exposes the company to a lawsuit for violating the laws that defend races and groups. Discrimination against the smaller groups, based on color, race, ethnicity or other groupings,

In writing this case analysis, it will cover the impact of the McKennon V. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. Supreme Court of the United States decision in any legal dispute regulated by Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and others by-law that covers the abolition of judgment in the place of work, the involvement to profit calculation technique in this type of legal suit, as well as impact in the workplace atmosphere. The Court detained that McKennon recognized that the establishment is responsible for its inequitable activities even where it consequently determines confirmation that would have led to the contrary action on legal and appropriate grounds. Not to mention, enclosed in this paper is a brief summary of the case from District Court through the Supreme Court ruling, comparing and contrasting the rulings issued by the U.S. Supreme Court and the District Court, and analyzing the reasoning used by the court to overturn the ruling issued by the district court. I will also, describe the pertinent variables of the analyses used by the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as state my recommendation as it refers to age discrimination.

Rule: The Supreme Court of the United States decided this case based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII contains two different definitions of illegal employment practices. “(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect

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

Over the years, the workplace has experienced several instances of discrimination. In attempt to stop the discrimination, Title VII was passed. Although Title VII helped employers in terms of race, color, gender, religion and national origin, those who had disabilities continued to face the frustration of disability barriers in the workplace, given disability was not one of the listed protected classes. Employers abstained from hiring the disabled in fear of them not being able to perform at the same level as the other employees or the attitudes of such employees towards the disabled workers. Of course, there was some legal protection against discrimination: The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, but this law only applied to employees

As we know that in common law, the competence in legal interpretation and application is of the court. In England, the judge can change every document to avoid those stupid things. This activity is one of the parts in interpreting law of the judge.