Religious Discrimination in the Workplace - Assignment Example

Research Table of Contents Part I: Research 3 Step 2 3 Religious Discrimination in the Workplace 3 Step 3 5 Webb v. of Philadelphia on Westlaw Case 5 Step 4 8 Third Circuit Case of EEOC v. Geo Group Inc. 8 Step 5 10 Article from 2011 in the UMKC Law Review 10 Part II: Essay 12 Works Cited 14 Part I: Research Step 2 Religious Discrimination in the Workplace Q 1. Is wearing a headscarf or other religious clothing a religious observance for purposes of Title VII (42 U.S.C. §2000e-2)? Answer: According to the fundamental framework of Title VII, it has been observed that it defends the various factors related to the religious considerations including beliefs and practices within the working place. The Title VII considers the major aspects of religious beliefs that are possessed by any religion i.e. either traditionally organized or any new religious communities (The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., “Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”). In the context of wearing headscarf, the religious provision within the Title VII includes certain considerations with regard to making an exception in dressing and grooming guidelines within the workplace. In the Title VII, different religious observances comprise head or face coverings, clothes, jewelries as well as other religious items. Hence, it can be recognized that wearing headscarf or other religious clothing has been considered as religious observance for purposes of Title VII (42 U.S.C. §2000e-2) (The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., “Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”) Q 6. What is the employer’s defense against providing a religious accommodation to an employee? Answer: The religious provisions that are mentioned in the Title VII considerably engages undue hardship defense in terms of providing required religious accommodation provisions for the employees. The defensive initiative for an employer in the Title VII is provided in order to grant exceptional provisions for the religious beliefs of the employees working under the employer in the workplace (The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., “Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”) Q 9. What does the employer need to demonstrate in terms of proving undue hardship? Answer: The factors relevant to proving undue hardship can be recognized as the type of the workplace, nature and roles of the workers, relevant accommodation cost with respect to operating cost and size of the employer as well as the appropriate accommodation requirements of the employees (The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., “Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”) Step 3 Webb v. City of Philadelphia on Westlaw Case Q. What is the Issue Related to the Webb v. City of Philadelphia Answer: The major issue within the case can be determined as a major concern related to the employment discrimination with regard to the Title VII and its religious observances. According to the case of employment discrimination, the issue rose as an appeal for religious consideration in the police uniform of any Muslim women police officer in the City of Philadelphia. The issue was appealed by Kimberlie Webb to allow wearing of religious garb with her uniform (Third Judicial Circuit, “United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit”). Q. What was the Police Commissioner’s reason for not allowing differences in personal appearance among law enforcement officers? Answer: The police commissioner Sylvester Johnson made certain arguments to allow Kimberlie Webb’s proposal of wearing religious garb with her uniform. The police commissioner articulated regarding the religious neutrality level of the police department. According to his opinion, religious neutrality is one of the major aspects of the police department in terms of dealing with civilization which facilitates to work cooperatively (Third Judicial Circuit, “United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit”). Q. Why did the court allow law enforcement officers to grow beards for religious reasons in that case? Answer: According to the case of Webb v. City of Philadelphia, it can be recognized that certain major controversial concerns occurred related to the religious observances that are included in the Title VII. Moreover, it has further observed to be a major issue relating to the case of Kimberlie Webb and the existing regulations of the Title. The major consideration of Title VII includes prohibition of disciplining and discharging of religious aspects of the workers within the workplace. With this concern, the decision of the court regarding this area was Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 1999). According to this decision, the conducts that are both religiously and secularly motivated cannot be discriminated by the government. Therefore, as per the order, the Newark police department disallowed growing of beards by police officers. However, they granted an exception based on medical grounds for growing breads as stated by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112. Moreover, after a lawsuit was filed by two officers in the department, religious exemption was granted against the ‘no-breads’ policy (Third Judicial Circuit, “United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit”). Q. Why is the case in answer “d” distinguishable from the Webb case? Answer: It can be recognized that Fraternal Order of Police was distinguishable from the Webb’s case due to the reason that the focus of the order depicts lack of neutrality in terms of introducing no-breads regulation. In this context, the decision of the department can be stated to be possessing discriminatory intent as there medical exemptions were upheld while religious exemptions were denied. Contrarily, in the Webb’s case, the directive of the Philadelphia Police Department contained no exceptions. Moreover, there was no evidence that the City allowed other police officers to swerve from it (Third Judicial Circuit, “United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit”). Step 4 Third Circuit Case of EEOC v. Geo Group Inc. Q. What type of business is Geo Group? Answer: The Geo Group Inc. is one of the major global organizations, which provides governmental services focusing on the management of correctional detention and it also extends its services towards providing healthcare and residential services for the mentally challenged people. The organization operates its business process through its four major business segments such as GEO care segment, international services, U.S. correction unit as well as facility design and construction division (The GEO Group, Inc., “Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(D) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934”). Q. What did the three female plaintiffs do in the prison? Answer: Three Muslim female petitioners, Marquita King, Carmen Sharpe-Allen and Rashemma Moss of Hill Facility were protesting to accommodate headscarf during their working processes. They claimed that wearing of ‘khimar’ by women is mandatory according to the Islam religion. They wanted an exemption in the dress code policy which had been implemented from April 2005. According to their arguments, it has been observed that dress code policy before April 2005 permitted wearing headscarf or religious garb during the working process (Third Judicial Circuit, “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Geo Group, Inc.”). Q. “When asked for additional reasons….” From his testimony, name a few reasons why he adopted a no-khimar policy. Answer: In the context of the Holm’s realm, it has been observed that various changes within the policies and the regulation of the prisoners of Hill Facility took place. Wearing of Hat or other related headscarf was banned among the prisoners within the Hill Facility during Holm’s period. The new regulations of Holm had been prepared to prevent various unexpected incidents within the prison environment. The important reasons for banning hats or headscarf inside the prison can be recognized through the case. The reasons comprise the aspect that the headscarf of the prisoners can be taken by any other individual and can be used for carrying out different malpractices against the prison’s policies. Moreover, any headscarf can also be used as a chocking instrument to grab a person from the back side. Furthermore, identification difficulties and other related concerns have been considered for no-khimar policy within the Hill Facility (Third Judicial Circuit, “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The geo group, inc.”). Q. What are the factors on either side of the arguments, according to the judge? Answer: From the perspective of the case, it can be observed that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had taken desirable initiatives in order to impose strict prohibition against using khimars by the Muslim employees that significantly discriminated religious observance. This is because the major factor behind restricting headscarf or any religious garb can be identified to be ensuring the level of safety of the other prisoners and the workers (Third Judicial Circuit, “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The geo group, inc.”). Step 5 Article from 2011 in the UMKC Law Review Q. How does a claim of religious discrimination arise? Answer: An increasing form of religious unfairness within the modern organizations has been observed to take place within the work place. Therefore, it is imperative to develop better employee knowledge regarding their different rights within the organization. The current situation of religious discrimination can be identified as a growing concern for the EEOC. An increasing number of religious harassment complaints have been witnessed where around 4,151 claims were made in the year 2011 which was an increase by 9.5% as compared to the previous year (Myers, “Claims of Workplace Religious Discrimination on the Rise”). Therefore, the study of the case is one of the major examples of religious discrimination that has occurred in various fields in between the employees and the employer or organizational policies. Q. Give the basic facts in two cases in which the court found in favor of the religious accommodation. Answer: From the fundamental facts of the two cases, it has been found that the resolution of the court was highly focused on favoring religious aspects of different religions within the workplace. According to the outcomes of the cases, the employers must need to present reasonable accommodations to the different religious practices of their employees. However, the religious accommodation can be refused only by the employers in case if it places any undue burden to the business (Myers, “Claims of Workplace Religious Discrimination on the Rise”). Q. The author refers to the definition of “undue hardship” in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Does she feel that the courts should apply that standard in religious discrimination cases? Answer: In relation to the facet of reasonable accommodation of the employees within the organization, the aspect of undue hardship considerably consigns to describe that the rules, policies as well as different exclusion issues must be communicated by the employers before involving any individual into the business process. From the perspective of undue hardship in the American Disabilities Act which is referred by the author, it can be stated that the courts must need to develop the guidelines with regard to promoting religious considerations of each individual within the workplace. Moreover, an effective amendment of the guidelines would be beneficial for the workers to remain more productive in the organizational process (Myers, “Claims of Workplace Religious Discrimination on the Rise”). Part II: Essay According to the observation of above discussion, it can considerably be recognized that various sections, subsections as well as amendments included in the Title VII precisely mention regarding any religious discrimination and its outcomes. However, according to the present scenario, arguably the aspect of religious discrimination within the working place is one of the rising issues for the employers, which is reflected through the opinions of various scholars and experts (Myers, “Claims of Workplace Religious Discrimination on the Rise”). The discussion of this research included different cases with regard to religious discrimination which has been observed from a critical observation of the cases. According to the surveillance of each case, it has been witnessed that similar types of discriminative aspects were practiced by the employers in terms of following the rules and the different factors within the Title VII in respect of the religious observances of the employees in the workplace. From the perspective of religious observances, various aspects of religious beliefs and dress code of the employees, the Title VII considerably reveals that the employers have to consider religious aspects including head or face covering, religious garbs or any jewelry within the working place. Consequently, it has been identified that similar issues occurred both in the case of Webb v. the City of Philadelphia and plaintiffs’ jobs in the Geo Group case. In relation to the outcomes of both the cases i.e. of Webb and EEOC, it can be observed that dissimilarity in terms of resolutions has taken place to maintain effective balance among the religious beliefs and employers’ facilitations to its employees. According to the case of Webb, the District Court declared that the City’s refusal of allowing to wear religious garb with the uniform as a religious discrimination under Title VII. However, in the case of EEOC v. Geo Group case context, the resolution of the court regarding the religious consideration in the organizational dress code was highly focused to maintain the safety and security of the employees within the workplace. Therefore, the appeal of allowing headscarves or khimars to be worn by the Muslim women employees have been denied due to certain safety and security concerns. Wearing beards by any employee within the workplace can considerably be distinguished as dissimilar factor according to the EEOC guidelines as well as institutional grooming and dress code policies. The differences can be stated based on the First Amendment of the Title VII, as it has mentioned that the Muslim male police officers were not permitted to have beards during the working time. However, it has been allowed in case of any medical (secular) concerns (Marin, “Religious Discrimination or Effective Law Enforcement? The Appeal of a Muslim Police Officer to Wear Her Khimar On-Duty Awaits Decision by Federal Judges: Kimberlie Webb v. City of Philadelphia, Civil Action No. 07-3081 (March 14, 2008).”). It can be agreed with the author of the law review article when she concludes that Congress needs to amend the statute to define “undue hardship” as per the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the fundamental guideline of undue hardship, it can be recognized that the employers must be answerable and oblige to provide reasonable accommodation or any religious consideration within the working place. Works Cited Marin, Alexandra, Religious Discrimination or Effective Law Enforcement? The Appeal of a Muslim Police Officer to Wear Her Khimar On-Duty Awaits Decision by Federal Judges: Kimberlie Webb v. City of Philadelphia, Civil Action No. 07-3081 (March 14, 2008). Rutgers School of Law, 2008. Web. 7 Nov. 2012. Myers, Teena, L. Claims of Workplace Religious Discrimination on the Rise. New Orleans Net LLC., 2012. Web. 7 Nov. 2012. The GEO Group, Inc. Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(D) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 2008. Web. 7 Nov. 2012. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., “Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace, 2012. Web. 7 Nov. 2012. Third Judicial Circuit. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2009. Web. 7 Nov. 2012. Third Judicial Circuit, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Geo Group, Inc., 2010. Web. 7 Nov. 2012. Read More