Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Title 28 of the Civil Rights Act of 1974
Contemporary religious discrimination
Religious and racial discrimination
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Title 28 of the Civil Rights Act of 1974
Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of religion and requires an employer to make reasonable efforts to accommodate religious practices of employees unless doing so would cause undue hardship to employer. Overall the number of EEOC cases with regard to religious discrimination has nearly doubled from 1997 where the reported cases were 1709 annually to 3721 cases in 2012 (US EEOC, 2012). The rise of cases in the US is primarily due to further diversity in the workplace and the employees embracing expressions of faith. Examples of religious discrimination in the workplace are varied from the basis of one’s dress or clothing, refrain from working Sabbath or religious holidays or antagonism between cultural or religious groups leading to harassment. Management strategies need to be identified and discussed with employees in the same manner as other components of employer’s diversity policy. The following is an example of a request for time off work to observe the Sabbath. In EEOC v. Thompson Contracting, Grading, Paving, and Utilities, Inc., No. 11-1897, the EEOC sued the company for failing to accommodate a request to not work Saturdays made by an employee who alleged he followed the Hebrew Israelite faith (Jones and Erickson, 2013). After Mr. Yisrael refused to work three different Saturdays, Thompson terminated his employment. Mr. Yisrael then filed a complaint with the EEOC. The job as a dump truck driver was infrequently called to work Saturdays but did so due to recent weather conditions. The employer would have had to hire substitute drivers for the time frame in order to cover his shift. In so doing, the employer would be incurring additional costs beyond normal ...
... middle of paper ...
... for the worst. Management strategies support employee uniqueness and help understand each individual’s contribution to the team while keeping in line with who they are, what they believe and where they come from in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
Works Cited
Cañas, K. A., & Sondak, H. (2014). Opportunities and challenges of workplace diversity: Theory, cases, and exercises (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Jones, T. and Erickson, E. (2013). Recent Developments in Religious Accommodation in the Workplace. Employment & Labor Relations Law, 12(1), 8-13
Levy, T. I. (2000). Religion in the Workplace. Management Review, 89(2), 38.
US Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. (2012). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/religion.cfm
(2013). HR Specialist: New York Employment Law, 8(3), 2.
In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any hiring, terminating, and other terms and conditions of employment utilized as means of religious discrimination against an employees is prohibited. Unless, the workers religious request was causing their employer undue hardship. These acts are mandated that employers reasonably accommodate their full time employees’. Reasonable
Cañas, K. A. & Sondak, H. (2011). Opportunities and challenged for workplace diversity: Theory, cases, and exercises. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has grown over the past few decades to ensure that employees, as well as employers, are protected against all employment discrimination. It is extremely important that both employers and employees know and understand what the law means and how to handle such acts of discrimination. As more amendments are passed into law, employers need to have clear and concise policies to help fight against discrimination.
In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), Ms. Adeil Sherbert challenged the South Carolina Employment Security Commission’s denial of her unemployment benefits. South Carolina refused to grant her assistance because she violated the Unemployment Compensation Act (UCA) by refusing to work on Saturday (the Sabbath Day of her faith). The Commission deemed this too weak a reason for her to avoid employment. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled on First Amendment Free Exercise grounds in the appellant’s favor when reviewed. Critically, the Court writes, “[The] appellant’s conscientious objection to Saturday work constitutes no conduct prompted by religious principles of a kind within the reach of state legislation.” Moreover, Justice Brennan continues, “The
In North Carolina a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise will go to federal court after a company’s plant manager withdrew a job offer to Darrell Littrell after he told the manager his would not be able to start working until after sunset Saturday because Adventists observed Sabbath. The manager then withdrew the job offer to Littrell and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is charging the franchise because they refused to hire Littrell because of his religious beliefs
According to Eisenhower (1959, March 13), “I believe that the United States as a government, if it is going to be true to its own founding documents, does have the job of working toward that time when there is no discrimination made on such inconsequential reason as race, color, or religion” (Eisenhower, 1959 March 13). In this paper I am going to discuss a case where an employer argued BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualifications), should Title VII apply to every company regardless of the number of employees, and should race and color be permissible bona fide occupational qualifications.
The case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) vs. Abercrombie & Fitch began in October of 2014. Samantha Eulaf, a practicing muslim woman, interviewed for a job at one of the storefronts of the corporation, Abercrombie & Fitch. Following the interview, Eulaf was not hired due to her headscarf which was not acceptable in the guidelines of the store’s look policy. The EEOC then stepped in to speak on Eulaf’s behalf claiming that Abercrombie violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits an employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant's religious practice when the practice can be accommodated without undue hardship.
Organizations can’t limit religious expression more heavily than other forms of expression as long as it has a similar impact on efficiency in the workplace. Employee’s expressions cannot create discomfort to others. (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2016)
... includes acts protecting most of employees. Besides, there is an enforcement practice of these acts by courts, arbitration courts and governmental institutions (EEOC). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission plays an important role in protecting employees’ rights. A thorough study of the cases carried out in this work proves that the USA has a well-balanced anti-discrimination system.
The Tandem Project expresses the law behind religion in the workforce by stating, “States are permitted to limit the
Accommodating religious expressions in the workplace can be a very hard and touchy issue. There are many concerns and legal issues that need to be addressed by an employer to make sure that everything works out smoothly. Unfortunately this whole process is easier said than done. Just simply the fact that there are many religions that need to be accommodated for. Such religions are Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism just to name a few. Each religion has different sets of beliefs and opinions, and it is the HR manager’s job to make sure that each member of the team is treated fairly and respectfully.
Many employers have grooming policies that are a part of the rules and regulations of the business. In the case involving FedEx and Mr. Polk, he, nor other employees within FedEx should be allowed to violate the grooming policy by a religious proclamation. Under the prohibited employment policies and practices regarding reasonable accommodation and religion, the law requires an employer to satisfactorily accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause difficulty or expense for the employer (Bernardin & Russell, 2007). Mr. Polk’s job title with FedEx requires him to interact with customers, if Mr. Polk’s dreadlocks were causing adverse reactions by customers, this would affect the long-term profitability
Religion in the workplace has been a controversial topic as well as a difficult issue that employers and employees must face. Religion remains to be a significant issue as organizations continue to become more diverse. Within the cultures and organizations throughout the world there are many different beliefs, practices and morals. There are laws however in place to protect religion as a freedom of expression. The laws protect individuals from discrimination based on religion, ethnic background, culture and practices, at the same time protecting organizations from potentially being sued for not providing accommodations to those who practice their beliefs. The argument surrounding religion in the workplace is whether or not religion is beneficial and should it be allowed to be practiced. This essay will attempt to show through the utilitarian and deontology theories and the relativism perspective, how religion is viewed by society and organizations within the workplace.
ACAS (2005). Religion or Belief and the Workplace: A Guide for Employers and Employees. Retrieved from http://www.acas.org/uk/media/pdf/f/l/religions_1.pdf
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. (2002, October). Religious discrimination – Accommodating differences in the workplace. Retrieved from: http://www.vssp.com/CM/Articles/articles871.asp