Religious discrimination in the Workplace
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. In compliance with this act, employers are required to provide accommodations when doing so would not provide inordinate hardship to the employer. CRA was established to safeguard employees from being hired or fired based on sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. There are generally four categories of religious discrimination: disparate treatment; religions harassment; failure to provide reasonable accommodations for religious observances and practices; and retaliation against employees based on alleged religious discrimination (Ghumman, et al., 2013). The term disparate treatment is used …show more content…
Maalick again experienced racial harassment when his supervisor, Jenkins was dismissive of the behavior of the other employees commenting that “As an American with African roots, you should have expected some lighthearted ribbing about your conversion to that strange religion of yours. These actions and comments by Jenkins violated Title VII because the actions and comments about Maalick’s race amounted to “racial” jokes as well as offensive and derogatory comments and harassment by written conduct and visual displays (EEOC, 1964).. Further, Maalick faced racial discrimination when he found papers on his desk with the title “Prayers for Black Folk” and a book titled Mystical Practices from the Negro Experience. These behaviors and actions by Maalick’s coworkers created an intimidating and hostile work environment, which prevented Maalick from performing at his highest …show more content…
Many racial harassment cases involve harassment by coworkers. It is an employer’s responsibility to be cognizant of the potential for racial harassment. The employer must ensure that its policies are designed to prevent and address any harassment in an expeditious manner. Treton did not meet this standard. Treton’s liability for harassment was cemented further because one of the harassers (Jenkins) was someone with authority over the employee (Maalick) and Jenkins was a supporter of the harassment and did nothing about it (EEOC,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. In compliance with this act, employers are required to provide accommodations when doing so would not provide inordinate hardship to the employer. CRA was established to safeguard employees from being hired or fired based on sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. There are generally four categories of religious discrimination: disparate treatment; religions harassment; failure to provide reasonable accommodations for religious observances and practices; and retaliation against employees based on alleged religious discrimination (Ghumman, et al., 2013). The term disparate treatment is used …show more content…
Maalick again experienced racial harassment when his supervisor, Jenkins was dismissive of the behavior of the other employees commenting that “As an American with African roots, you should have expected some lighthearted ribbing about your conversion to that strange religion of yours. These actions and comments by Jenkins violated Title VII because the actions and comments about Maalick’s race amounted to “racial” jokes as well as offensive and derogatory comments and harassment by written conduct and visual displays (EEOC, 1964).. Further, Maalick faced racial discrimination when he found papers on his desk with the title “Prayers for Black Folk” and a book titled Mystical Practices from the Negro Experience. These behaviors and actions by Maalick’s coworkers created an intimidating and hostile work environment, which prevented Maalick from performing at his highest …show more content…
Many racial harassment cases involve harassment by coworkers. It is an employer’s responsibility to be cognizant of the potential for racial harassment. The employer must ensure that its policies are designed to prevent and address any harassment in an expeditious manner. Treton did not meet this standard. Treton’s liability for harassment was cemented further because one of the harassers (Jenkins) was someone with authority over the employee (Maalick) and Jenkins was a supporter of the harassment and did nothing about it (EEOC,