Disparate Treatment or Disparate Impact
In order to understand the category of discrimination in which these cases lie, it is important to understand the basics of the two types. Desperate impact is unpretentious discrimination. An organization 's employment practice has all the earmarks of being nonpartisan, yet the impact or impact irrationally discriminates against a protected class. Desperate impact discrimination is more entangled and harder to demonstrate than desperate treatment. Regularly it comes about because of organization policy that prohibits someone in particular or people from the occupation or from advancements. The policy was not intended to avoid them; that was only the heartbreaking result. Punishments coming about because …show more content…
Bonafide Occupational Qualification
In the Henderson case, where he was fired for asking permission for Friday prayers, the conditions and standards of BFOQ are clearly violated by the employer. According to Bonafide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) these are employment qualifications that employers are permitted to consider while settling on choices about enlisting and maintenance of employees. The qualification ought to relate to a crucial occupation obligation and is viewed as vital for operation of the specific business.
The Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications principle takes into account the procuring of individuals taking into account race, sex, age, and national origin if these characteristics are true blue occupational qualifications. This is an exemption and complete safeguard to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protects employees from discrimination taking into account religion, sex, age, national origin and shading at the work environment.
In Henderson as well as the Drivers’ case, they were all qualified and selected on merit for their jobs, they neither committed any intentional or technical mistake. Yet their merit was ridiculed by firing them because of their …show more content…
When he was hired and was interviewed, he would have shown no intention of hiding his religion. His religion was disclosed for the employer. During his career after recruitment, he had no complaints of less efficient work services and delays in services. There are also no complaints against him by his colleagues. He was also hired on merit and on basis of qualification. In such cases, employee does not appear to be on fault as he did not hide any of his personal details about religion.
During his tenure as an employee, no loss was bore by employer on his behalf. He was an efficient and careful employee.
Employer, on the other hand, not only refused his basic human and civil rights for practicing his religion with freedom and respect in United States of America. But also unjustly and unreasonably fired him. Henderson had made no excuses, nor forced the employer to grant him leave for prayer once he was refused. Yet the employer fired him because he was a Muslim with the excuse that “it was not working out” and “We just got to let you go” only.
Therefore, it is evident that the employee had no criminal or negligentary excuses or complaints on his side. Yet he is humiliated and fired by his employer without any clarification. My ruling would go in favor of
In order to understand the category of discrimination in which these cases lie, it is important to understand the basics of the two types. Desperate impact is unpretentious discrimination. An organization 's employment practice has all the earmarks of being nonpartisan, yet the impact or impact irrationally discriminates against a protected class. Desperate impact discrimination is more entangled and harder to demonstrate than desperate treatment. Regularly it comes about because of organization policy that prohibits someone in particular or people from the occupation or from advancements. The policy was not intended to avoid them; that was only the heartbreaking result. Punishments coming about because …show more content…
Bonafide Occupational Qualification
In the Henderson case, where he was fired for asking permission for Friday prayers, the conditions and standards of BFOQ are clearly violated by the employer. According to Bonafide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) these are employment qualifications that employers are permitted to consider while settling on choices about enlisting and maintenance of employees. The qualification ought to relate to a crucial occupation obligation and is viewed as vital for operation of the specific business.
The Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications principle takes into account the procuring of individuals taking into account race, sex, age, and national origin if these characteristics are true blue occupational qualifications. This is an exemption and complete safeguard to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protects employees from discrimination taking into account religion, sex, age, national origin and shading at the work environment.
In Henderson as well as the Drivers’ case, they were all qualified and selected on merit for their jobs, they neither committed any intentional or technical mistake. Yet their merit was ridiculed by firing them because of their …show more content…
When he was hired and was interviewed, he would have shown no intention of hiding his religion. His religion was disclosed for the employer. During his career after recruitment, he had no complaints of less efficient work services and delays in services. There are also no complaints against him by his colleagues. He was also hired on merit and on basis of qualification. In such cases, employee does not appear to be on fault as he did not hide any of his personal details about religion.
During his tenure as an employee, no loss was bore by employer on his behalf. He was an efficient and careful employee.
Employer, on the other hand, not only refused his basic human and civil rights for practicing his religion with freedom and respect in United States of America. But also unjustly and unreasonably fired him. Henderson had made no excuses, nor forced the employer to grant him leave for prayer once he was refused. Yet the employer fired him because he was a Muslim with the excuse that “it was not working out” and “We just got to let you go” only.
Therefore, it is evident that the employee had no criminal or negligentary excuses or complaints on his side. Yet he is humiliated and fired by his employer without any clarification. My ruling would go in favor of