Textbook That Are Found: Case Study

Religion and ethnicity are two critical aspects of cultural diversity. Religion affects behavior in the organizational sector around the world still today, although most corporate establishment views this technique of integration as dangerous for the publicity of business affairs. Some companies welcome these affairs and do not place restrictions upon their employee’s for the belief of this method. These companies are allowing their employees to be flexible and reliable for their ethical choice as long as it does not interfere with their regular duties or standard operations procedures. Furthermore, these guidelines addressed by our former president, Bill Clinton, who stated that federal government employees have full rights toward religious expression as long as it does not interfere with the organizational efficiency or as the government perception of endorsing a particular religion. Nevertheless, under “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, organizations have a legal obligation to offer reasonable arrangements for employees to practice his or her religious beliefs as long as it does not pose a threat toward other employer’s or business officials (U.S Department of Justice, 2017).” Research has discovered that one out of five American workers denied employment, promotion, or recognition based on his or her ethnicity. For example, in reviewing the September the eleventh attack that killed several American, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported an

Prior to Cracker Barrel’s evaluation and termination of lesbian and gay employees, the company frequently denied them promotional opportunities, applicants being rejected, employees fired and decision makers became bias; nevertheless, both heterosexual and same-sex were employed with the company. The difficulties of implementing discrimination rules against sexual orientation, originates from these main factors: “employers view homosexuality as somehow detrimental to job performance or harmful to the company’s public profile;” more importantly, the company hasn’t established a nondiscriminatory policy against homosexuals; hence, it is “difficult to trace” (Harvey & Allard, 2015, p. 166). Seeing the rapid growth of the company being unfazed by the boycott and other movements in the media, Dan Evins felt empowered to continue rejecting homosexuals; hence, he did. The upward trending of the company’s profit, proves the vast support for Cracker Barrel’s actions.

This newspaper article discusses how more business such as Walmart and the Apple store are beginning to call on office holders to reject the laws designed to give business the right to deny service based on one’s sexuality. This article gives an opposing view of my stance that businesses should be able to deny service. In addition, it justifies my argument that more people are becoming more excepting off the LGBT community, however only a small portion. The information from this site is accurate and had reliable information to support its research and argument. Furthermore, the article is geared toward all American people as its goal is to provide information of what corporations are doing to stop legislation denying service to the LGBT community. The corporations mentioned in the article have a huge voice and can make a large impact on government, as they hope to one day make a

Twenty states in the U.S currently have laws prohibiting the discrimination based on sexual orientation in public, as well as private jobs. These states include Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Main, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington Wisconsin and California. As found by California lawyers, the number of cases filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or DFEH, pertaining to employment discrimination based on sexual orientation has “increased from 636 in 2001, to 714 in 2005 and to 821 in 2008. In 2011, the number of sexual orientation employment discrimination cases filed with DFEH spiked to 1,104.” This drastic increase may be attributed to the advocacy of equality in marriage laws in California and in other

An article written by Nathalie Schmidt, a PhD candidate in political theory at Columbia University outlines that points that are made about the issue of religious freedom in hiring empoloyees, especially in religious institutions or companies. The article was extremely biased, leaning to the side of believing that sexual orientation should not be grounds for being fired. This opinion was the main idea of the article and the article went over various points and reasons for believing this, also taking some points from the other side into consideration.

workplaces due to not feeling welcome, transgendered face double the rate of mistreatment on the job as LGBT colleagues. As written in the Huffington Post on June, 22, 2016: “While progress has been made with the legalization of same-sex marriages in some countries, many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people fear that revealing their sexuality or sexual orientation at the workplace will have negative consequences. The major challenge for LGBT people in the workplace is continuing harassment or discrimination. It is estimated that 40 percent of lesbians, gays and bisexuals experienced harassment and discrimination at work because of their sexual orientation. The statistics for transgender employees

The last protected class discriminated against within the hospitality industry that will be examined is religion. Everyone has their own beliefs, and practices their own faith, but at times these practices can interfere with one’s job opportunities and livelihood. In the case, Christian Emergency Services Supervisory Officer Denied Religious Accommodation and Subjected to Harassment at Keystone Resort, the victim, Lisa Marie Cornwell, an emergency services supervisor at the Keystone Resort, was subjected to harassment for not only her Christian religion but for her gender as well. She was denied religious accommodation and treated less favorably than her male counterparts. The EEOC said that Cornwell’s supervisor, Rick Garcia, banned her and another Christian employee from discussing their Christian beliefs and would not allow them to listen to Christian music while on duty. Moreover, according to the EEOC, Garcia ridiculed Cornwell for asking for scheduling accommodation so that she could attend her desired religious services, and denied her requests while scheduling lower ranking officers for the shifts she requested. On top of that, Cornwall was also sexually harassed, so she went through a lot.

Lisa Sherman worked for Verizon for many years. While there she never revealed her sexual orientation .Then one fated day, there was a diversification workshop with her fellow managers. The outcome of this was that her coworkers were bigoted towards homosexuality. Lisa Sherman had a tough decision to make, whether to stay or to leave. The following analysis shows a suggested solution.

DeNesi and Griffin (2014) contend that this legislation is currently the most important that specifically affects the legal context for human resource management (p. 5). Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of an individual’s race, color, sex, or national origin (DeNisi & Griffin, 2014, p. 26). According to the law, employers are required to reasonably accommodate the sincere religious beliefs, observances, and practices of their employees as long as the accommodations do not cause undue hardship for the employer (Ghumman et al., 2013). The law is applicable is all aspects of the employment relationship including compensation and working conditions. In addition, it prohibits employers from refusing to hire, discharge, or discriminate any individual with respect to any of those aspects on the basis of that individual’s color, race, religion, sex, or national origin (DeNisi & Griffin, 2014, p.

As of today there are still no federal laws protecting the rights of employees with non-traditional sexualities of being discriminated against in their workplace. There have been no consistencies shown from the federal government regarding this matter. Although there are efforts currently taking place to pass a federal law to prohibit discrimination based on sexuality along with increasing numbers of supportive congressmen, the bill still hasn’t yet become a law. It is referred to as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA which was introduced in 1994. There has been more acceptance of sexual orientation at the state level than at federal. Many states have

According to Jennifer C. Pizer, Legal Director and Amold D. Kassoy Senior Scholar of Law, more than 8 million people who are gay and lesbians are in the workforce and have experiences discriminations (719). Pizer informs us that in 2008 about 37% of gay and lesbians experience harassments at work like rude comments and 12% had lost their jobs because of their sexual preference (721). In 2011 47% of gay and lesbians were discriminated in job hiring’s, job promotions, and job retentions (Pizer 721). Pizer conceives an over view that about 8-17% of homosexuals have been fired from employment, 10-28% were denied in promotion or given a negative comments, 7-41% them where physical abused or had been harassed, and 10-19% of them had unfair benefits (725). Pizer also tells us that gay and lesbian, “Employees face as a result of the denial of equal benefits to employees with a same-sex spouse or partner” (760). About 60% of gay and lesbians report not having anything health insurance as well as equal treatment as a heterosexual couple (Pizer 765). In a few words, Title VII bans all sex discrimination but yet Title VII is getting overlooked (Pizer 716). So because of this discrimination happens, and homosexuals are more likely to have health issues and to be treated with no respect in the workforce. Now that we have taken a look on

The subject of expanding LGBT civil rights is complicated and controversial in today’s society. Larkin (2016) stated that laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex do not protect those who identify as LGBT. Title VII does not address sexual orientation as a protected right. Plaintiffs who have experienced discrimination must argue their discrimination was due to gender identify and social norms (Larkin, 2016). Since there is no straightforward enforcement of LGBT nondiscrimination laws this group receives the highest amount of discrimination. However, social acceptances of the LGBT lifestyles are rapidly progressing. With this newly found social acceptance and the increase in population growth, workplace discrimination laws will need adjusted so that this population becomes a protected

In recent years, multiple states have enacted Employment Nondiscrimination Acts (ENDAs) in order to prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Currently, ENDAs exist in twenty-two states, including the District of Columbia (Martell, 2013). Even though ENDAs work to end sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace, they need to be extended on a federal basis in order to be maximally effective. This is because sexual orientation discrimination still widely exists in employment today. Tilcsik’s (2011) audit study of hiring discrimination among openly gay men proves that this type of discrimination is still heavily present in the labor market. According to Martell’s (2013) study, ENDAs have had success in

The general line of reasoning is that if we learn to incorporate each other’s diverse traits and characteristics in the workplace, we can then use these differences to foster an innovative environment, which will give the company a competitive advantage over the competitors that do not accept workforce diversity. According to the Allied Academies International Conference, “Diversity is rapidly becoming a common practice among companies due to the increasing number of minorities entering the job market today. As these groups become more prevalent throughout companies, upper-level employees are facing numerous challenges when determining what changes must take place to create a positive working environment for everyone. Management is responsible for the development and implementation of effective policies directly relating to diversity to ensure the acceptance of minorities into the workplace and to aid in minorities’ success through equal opportunities and treatment.” (Marcia L. James, 2001, Academy for Studies in International Business Proceedings)

There are several reasons as to why an employer may not discriminate against an employee or an applicant mentioned under the Title VII, Civil Right Act of 1964. However, the one relevant to this topic is discrimination for an individual’s religious penchant. In no shape or form can an organization’s dogma indicate that the reasoning for choosingnot to employ or to even block an elevation within the company has anything to do with the person’s choice of religion. “Under the First Amendment, Americans enjoy two freedoms with respect to religion: the right to be free from a government-imposed religion, and a right to practice any religion.” Thomas Reuters (2017)