The Last Protected Class Discriminated Against Within The Hospitality Industry

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

1. Maalick experienced religious segregation on a few events while at work. The primary occurrence was the point at which he asked for get-away for a religious occasion and his director was hesitant to allow the solicitation as a result of his religious convictions. As indicated by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 managers are required to sensibly suit the religious practices of a representative or planned worker, unless to do as such would make an undue hardship upon the business. Sensible housing may incorporate adaptability in planning, work reassignments, or intentional substitutions. Despite the fact that the supervisor in the long run conceded the get-away demand since he doubted Maalick about it when it would not bring about the organization undue hardship would be viewed as religious separation. After Maalick changed his name he encountered prodding about his religious decisions from his associates and his chief. This made an extremely threatening workplace for Maalick. The misuse that Maalick persevered is viewed as religious segregation and provocation. It is unlawful to disturb somebody on account of their religious convictions. As indicated by the Federal Equal

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.

Due to the inappropriate and negative references to the religious affiliation of Maalick by his supervisor Clive Jenkins, the denial of the promotion is potentially discriminatory in nature. According to Gomez-Mejia, Balkin and Cardy (2016), the act of “discrimination simply means making distinction” (p. 88) and Clive Jenkins definitively singled out Maalick with his negative commentary directed towards Maalick’s religion. The specific legal issue Trenton should be concerned about is a violation of the Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 which states that “employment decisions should not be based on characteristics such as race, sex, age or disability” (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin & Cardy, 2016 p. 88).

The United States Supreme Court, as well as federal district and state courts, defines employee rights and an employer’s liability for employment law violations. Treatment on the job, including hiring, firing, and promotions, must be based on qualifications and merit and not on race, gender, age, sexual preference or how one responds to sexual advances. Yet despite these laws and policies, many employees continue to suffer from workplace harassment and employment discrimination.

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.

An employee is refused e.g. training or lost a job, because of their beliefs, race or sexuality

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

Gwendolyn I. Cooper v. Oak Rubber Company 15 F.3d 1375 (6th Cir 1994) case supports our recommendation of litigation because Cooper could not establish prima facie case of discrimination, that Oak reasonably accommodated her religious beliefs. The district court concluded that Oak could not have relieved Cooper all Saturday work responsibility without suffering undue hardship, i.e., the need to hire another employee or a resulting loss of production.

The religious discrimination lawsuits filed in federal court with the EEOC indicate that there were employees who believed their religious rights were not being protected. For example, Omari v. Waste Gas Fabricating Co. was a 2005 9/11 backlash case. Omari, a Muslim from Algeria, filed a claim with the EEOC for discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. Omari claimed that he was repeatedly called “Osama, terrorist, cave dweller, camel driver,” and was accused of making bombs and questioned as to whether or not he knew how to drive a plane into a building. Omari rejected the accusations and tried to explain that he was not an Arab, but the comments did

Cheryl Perich was an employer of the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School and filled an employment discrimination suit for alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cheryl became sick and left work to be on disability, but then was not able to return to her position and allegedly urged to resign. When she refused resignation, her employer Hosanna fired her. The EEOC then filed a discrimination suit against Hosanna-Tabor, which was dismissed. Upon the appeal by Perich and the EEOC, courts ruled that Perich was not a ministerial employee and the case must be retried on the merit of the discrimination claims. In this case, 10-553, the appeal was reversed and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hosanna-Tabor’s actions were lawful.

DeMur found very clear issues that can relate to Harassment and Equal Employment Opportunity discrimination within his work place. It started when his supervisor was hesitant to grant him days off for a religious event. This event was something that the supervisor did not know and did not understand why DeMur would want to join this religion. Jenkins, who is DeMur’s supervisor, said that he was a religious person and called his a “so called religion.” After a

This religious discrimination not only demonstrates the cultural problems that are present at the Midwest facility, but for the entire corporation. Even though Martra Ford handled the situation correctly and effectively once she was aware of the problem, other changes must be made to Treton’s EEO training and reporting procedures. Ideally, Maalick’s formal complaints will be dealt with quickly and disciplinary actions distrusted accordingly. Once this issue is resolved Judith Dixon and Martha Ford should determine how to solve the underlying issues that this scenario

Nantiya Ruan, currently a Professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, has years of experience representing plaintiffs in complex litigations in the United States, including cases on civil rights, employment discrimination, and compensation. In this article, much is spoken about the various laws protecting one against religious discrimination, including the Free Exercise Clause, the First Amendment, and the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, among others. The article places emphasis on several cases where the courts have denied religious expression in the workplace. To solve these inconsistencies, Ruan devises three approaches for the courts to provide protection for respectful religious expression. Ruan states that, "This

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