Avoid Religious Discrimination in HR Perspective Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious, ethical and moral beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer” (EEOC). To provide religious accommodation, employers are supposed to offer adjustments to the work environment to avoid or solve conflict of employees’ religious belief and practices with workplace requirements. Common religious accommodations include flexible working time, modifications of policies, and job reassignment. From HR perspective,…
In the case of petitioner ExtremeNet versus respondent Allen Lopez, this case occurred in the State of Georgia in which At Will Employment Law applies. Respondent is making a counter claim. The respondent had worked for the petitioner for seven years in a middle-management position. The respondent found the position rewarding and was well paid. The petitioner struggled to manage the effects of an economic downward spiral; therefore, some employees were laid off and new personnel policies were implemented.…
Ultimately, the court did not rule in favor of Mr. Regulski, as they did not find inferences of adverse action by the employer for both issues. Conclusion It is important for the rights of employees to be preserved by legislation and the courts.…
Dixon v. Pulaski County Special School Dist., 578 F.3d 862, 868 (8th Cir. 2009). "[C]ourts will not second-guess an employer 's business decisions when determining whether the reason given for the [employment decision] was a pretext for discrimination. " Moschetti v. Chicago, Central & Pacific R.R., 119 F.3d 707, 709 (8th Cir. 1997). There is no evidence Union Pacific harbored any discriminatory animus toward Complainant and Complainant has not shown Union Pacific 's reason was pretext for discrimination. Accordingly, Complainant 's discrimination claim fails and should be…
On June 1st 2015 the Supreme Court issued a decision that could affect the hiring policies and procedures of many employers. The 8-1 decision reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s prior decision that under Title VII an employer is not required to provide a religious accommodation unless the employer had actual knowledge. The Supreme Court case was brought by the EEOC on behalf of Samantha Eluaf who was not hired by Abercrombie and Fitch (A&F) because her religious garb violated the company’s dress policy.…
The South Carolina State Supreme Court had found that the burden was on the state to show that they were not discriminating against the individual in a specific manner, and that their laws were not unreasonable or unnecessarily restricting on individual freedoms. However, the state contended that they had not denied benefits to Sherbert because of her religion or religious practices, and that Sherbert 's adherence to the Seventh Day Adventist faith was belying the point. Instead, they had merely utilized the same rule for determining benefits eligibility that would apply to any person who had applied for unemployment. Although Sherbert 's specific practices happened to make her ineligible for the benefits, the state had not set about to individually discriminate against her, nor was the state preventing her from practicing her faith.…
As a result, Congress ordered the secretary of labor to product a report on employment discrimination due to age. The report presented by the Secretary of Labor confirmed that age discrimination in employment was a debilitating problem that needed to be address. The passage of Title VII make it clear…
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act brought about two chief concepts of illegal discrimination. These concepts are disparate treatment and disparate impact (Harper, 2016). This section of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Individuals cannot lawfully be denied employment opportunities or have their employment adversely affected merely because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (EEOC Website, 2016).…
Therefore, the Court-offered alternative of having the government fund contraceptives would not fulfill the compelling interests that Congress sought to accomplish through the mandate and does not qualify as an available and less restrictive alternative. Exemption on these grounds also contradicts a precedent the Court has established through cases including Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. (1985), in which the Court struck down a law accommodating employees’ observance of the Sabbath due to the burden imposed on the employer, stating that accommodations to religious beliefs must not significantly impinge upon the interests of third…
CutX has not violated Title VII; Ganesh's claims are unreasonable. To avoid violation cases of Title VII, an employer must take the necessary steps to insure equality for their employees. An employer must provide reasonable accommodations for employees who fit under the Title VII category. An exception to this rule is if the accommodations result in undue hardship on business operation. An undue hardship is when an accommodation is either too expensive to provide for or too burdensome to provide for.…
This report is in response to the letter from a local legal firm. One of the applicants that was not offered the position is claiming discrimination. The local law firm requested to see the EEO-1 report data that shows the racial and ethnic designations of the 100 applicants. The EEO-1 report is usually submitted and certified by September 30th, 2016 (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). We already submitted last year’s EEO-1 report.…
Question 1: Identify and describe the specific issues Maalick encountered in the workplace. Do the actions of other workers at Trenton represent discrimination and harassment? What elements of law are important for Trenton to consider? Religious Discrimination & Harassment: Harassment and discrimination was evident in this case based on Maalick’s religion. Trenton has strong culture that provide avenues for employees to know what will and will not be accepted in relation to their behavior, workplace discrimination, and harassment.…
The first amendment is the nucleus and appears to be the root of various political affairs in today’s modern society. From freedom of speech to the controversial subject matter of abortion; the first amendment contains multifarious deficiencies and is a profoundly disputed topic. Discrimination is one of the monumental aspects associated with this misconstrued amendment. Debate is very prevalent on the matter of whether it or not it should it be deemed unlawful for citizens to discriminate against minorities or gays without facing a consequence. The United States constitution prohibits discrimination when referring to any and all facets of employment.…
According to the legislation, a “covered entity” in charge of fifteen or more employees cannot discriminate a qualified individual in any part of employment, including in job application procedures, advancement in employment, or any other benefits of employment. Although employers do not have to provide impractical accommodations that would result in extreme inefficiency or cost, but are required to reasonably accommodate any potential employee. Reasonable accommodations cater to the individual needs of an employee; examples include specialized equipment or allowing flexibility in scheduling and job description. Potential employees are not to be fired or rejected due to any disability real or assumed, and cannot be treated negatively on account of any disclosed…
Employment at Will (EAW) is a long-standing employment policy in the United States. EAW is a simple belief that employers are able to employ and dismiss any employee, for any reason (except protected classes), at any time without cause. At the same time, an employee may quit at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. At the end of an employment term, however it came to be, the employer and employee get a “clean break”, that is neither owes the other any duty solely based on employment and they are both free to continue about their way free of the other. The morality of EAW has been debated throughout its history and has been influenced by employers, the public, the courts, and ethicists.…