Religion & Discrimination In The Workplace - Coursework Example

Religion & Discrimination In The Workplace As many human beings make the journey to work each and every day, they seek to participate in the daily grind as a means of social interaction, as well as monetary compensation. All the while not expecting such a thing as discrimination to occur towards them from an outside source, whether it being directed from an employer, or from a fellow co-worker, an employee can find themselves greatly caught off guard after such an event(s) taking place. To have it be any form of discrimination, in particular that which discriminates against a person(s) based upon their individual, or collective religious practices, is something that falls within the realm of breaking the law in that any form of discrimination is something which is not permitted in the workplace by anyone towards any other person. From a corporate standpoint, “The laws against religious discrimination present employers with a seeming contradiction. On the one hand, you cant make employment decisions based on a persons religion. On the other, you might have to take an employees religion into account when making workplace decisions,” Adding that, “This apparent contradiction comes from the fact that religion is not just a characteristic- it is also a set of practices and beliefs. The law prohibits you from discriminating based on the fact of someones religion (for example, that an employee is Jewish or Catholic or Baptist). However, it also requires you to make allowances for a persons religious practices and beliefs (for example, that an employee needs time after lunch to pray or that an employee needs Saturdays off to observe his or her Sabbath),” (DelPo, p.1). With that being said, on the one hand, an employer is prevented by law from making hiring decisions that are based in any way on a persons respective religious beliefs. While on the other hand, the employer is also not permitted to partake in another form of discrimination in that they would be prevented from the act of discriminating against the same employee(s) when it comes to allocating the understanding that some may desire the necessary time to observe their respective religious practices unique to their given religions. From a legal position, there is a line that highlights the relevance of non-discrimination as it comes to religion in the workplace. As it does not just occur with those religions in the mainstream such as Judeo-Christianity or Catholicism, other religious beliefs like those of the Muslim or Jewish faith to name a few, are just a sampling of the religious sects whom, at one point or another, have found their basic principles and tenets attacked. Figuratively speaking, through such a manner that an employee(s), who may practice such a theological virtue, is judged by an outside person(s) for having their beliefs. A group which also faces great discrimination, in this instance having to do with their lack of belief structure in religion, would be that of those people who would classify themselves of being without any belief in a higher power, but would rather consider themselves to be atheists in beliefs and behaviors as such. In the instance of observing the US cases which have to do with religious discrimination, one such example would be in the case of the transit system in Washington, D.C. As it stands, “The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in the U.S. District Court for D.C., alleging the transit authority discriminates against employees based on religion,” Going on to say that, “The woman named in the complaint is Gloria Jones, a member of the Apostolic Pentecostal faith, who applied for a bus driver position with the transit agency. The religion encourages women to wear long skirts, not pants. The complain alleges that WMATA didnt hire her because her religious practices prevented her from complying with a part of WMATAs uniform policy for bus drivers. The complaint says that WMATA denies requests for religious accommodations to its uniform policy,” (Plumb, 10/01/08). The Plumb article goes on to say that, “The complaint alleges that WMATA failed to reasonably accommodate and provide equal employment opportunities to its staff and potential employees when their religious practices conflict with WMATA’s uniform policy. The suit seeks an order for WMATA to undo those alleged practices and seeks monetary damages and other relief for victims of religious discrimination by WMATA. A spokeswoman for the transit authority said the agency does not comment on ongoing litigation,” Adding that, “The Justice Department’s civil division would not comment on the expected timeline of the suit because cases against transit systems can go in different directions. This is the ninth Title VII suit the civil rights division has filed so far this year,” (Plumb, 10/01/08). From the standpoint of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, as well as the statute that prevents religious discrimination against individuals, the case against the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority would be of a mentionable nature. While an employer is not allowed to make employment decisions based on a persons religious choices, it is also to be expected that a persons religious practices are to be taken into consideration when it involves issues of the workplace. As Ms. Jones was not formally an employee as of yet, but was seeking gainful employment, the decision of the employer would be murky at best. Ensured the right to a fair and just hiring process through the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, while not an actual employee of the company itself, persons such as Ms. Jones would have cases of discrimination, but not under the same parameters as that of religious discrimination, as it is applied under the description listed. Taking a more definitive stand, “The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling saying that a plaintiff must prove that an employer knew that a job applicant was a member of a minority group before he or she can file a discrimination suit against the employer, Business Insurance reports. In Steven Lubetsky vs. Applied Card Systems Inc., Mr. Lubetsky accused Applied Card of rescinding a job offer on the basis of religion. Mr. Lubetsky, an Orthodox Jew, was offered a job by a recruiter, and was assured that allowances would be made for observation of religious holidays,” Addressing it further that, “According to Business Insurance, when manager John Bardakjy found out that the recruiter had offered Mr. Lubetsky a job, he immediately demanded that the offer be rescinded. Mr. Bardakjy said that he had met Mr. Lubetsky at a job fair where he had exhibited rude and aggressive behavior. The recruiter says that she did not relay her conversation with Mr. Lubetsky about his religion to Mr. Bardakjy. Mr. Bardakjy denied any knowledge of Mr. Lubetskys religious association. The federal appellate court unanimously upheld a lower courts decision to dismiss the case, stating that the plaintiff failed to present a clear case of intentional discrimination, Business Insurance reports. Further, the court ruled t hat Mr. Lubetsky had no evidence that Mr. Bardakjy was aware of his religion,” (“Court rules for”, 07/23/02). The case of Mr. Lubetsky is one of special circumstance. On in which one side alludes to the presence of an offering of employment by a company representative, while the other side maintains they were not aware of Mr. Lubetskys religion due to the fact that the recruiter would later claim that they had not provide the substantive details of the conversation involving religion to the manager in question Mr. Bardakjy. An interesting point which the article brings up later has to do with the issue of whether or not a persons religion can be garnered from just simply observing what their name is, whether it being their first or last name, or even both. Providing a level of confusion to the claim, the manager relays that he met the potential new hire, Mr. Lubetsky, at a hiring event but does not specify if it was at the hiring event for which the recruiter would have been when they met Mr. Lubetsky, or if it would have been another one entirely different. Without such clarification of details, it would be hard to gage as to whether or not the manger was in fact present at the same hiring event and as such would have been privy, to a certain degree or another, to the initial conversation that would have been had between his companies recruiter and Mr. Lubetsky. In the end, Mr. Lubetsky would have a hard time proving religious discrimination against Mr. Bardakjy as such based on the lack of knowledge as to how, if ever, he was given the information in regards to Lubetsky being a person of Jewish belief practices. Finally, “Richard Tuschman, a Miami employer attorney, told Business Insurance the courts decision arguably "raises the bar for a religious discrimination claim" within the 11th circuit. "It requires the plaintiff to prove that the decision-maker knew of his religion, even in circumstances where the employees name might very well suggest the religion of the plaintiff," he said. Mr. Tuschman noted that it is a safe assumption in south Florida that a person with the surname Lubetsky is Jewish,” (“Court rules for”, 07/23/02). Despite whether or not Mr. Lubetskys name would have been overtly Jewish in nature, that in itself did not bode well to aid his cause in proving religious discrimination against Applied Card Systems, Inc. For belief purposes, as well as practices, those who believe in God are not the only ones who can find themselves persecuted in one form or another. Yet another group which can be faced with the presence of discriminatory practices would be those who would classify themselves as atheists, or those who do not believe in God as traditional Christians do. For the purposes of the legislation involving religious discrimination, while an employer cannot utilize a persons religious affiliation in regards to the decisions which they make, it can also be said that in the case of atheists, the lack of organized religion on their part also serves to mention that they too would classify under the same no-discrimination policy that other religious believers would fall under as it comes to consideration for such things as employment. With other cases that have been observed, the case involving Carletta Simms and CitiGroup would be a far stronger example of religious discrimination in the workplace. While not considered an organized religion such as Christianity, Baptist, Catholicism or any of the others, the beliefs amongst Atheists do fall under the classification of religious or spiritual affiliation in that when asked, the response is to proclaim ones self as an Atheist as to proclaim their status of electing to not adopt the same beliefs as their counterparts. The case between Simms and Citigroup stems from her claim of wrongful termination based on her religious beliefs. In an article for the Kingsport Times-News, “A $250,000 religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the Tennessee director of American Atheists Inc. against CitiGroup has been settled. Kingsport attorney Charlton DeVault said the federal lawsuit filed by Carletta Sims was settled through mediation in Knoxville two weeks ago. Under the terms of the settlement, DeVault said he could not disclose what amount of money Sims received,” Also that, “"Shes relieved that its over, shes pleased that the court reinstated the case on the merits, and shes pleased with the settlement," DeVault said. Sims filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Greeneville in December 2001 claiming she was discharged from the company because she is an atheist. Sims began working at the former ACS facility, located at 541 Sid Martin Road in Gray, on June 21, 2000. Since that time, ACS sold the property to CitiGroup. The lawsuit stemmed from an incident in which two female co-workers allegedly became openly hostile toward Sims after she showed them her business card. The two women complained and were granted a request to be moved away from Sims. The lawsuit claims a picture of Jesus was posted on Sims computer two days after the incident. After Sims complained about the picture, her supervisor, Russell Rogers, dismissed her on the grounds that she was being a disturbance,” (Lane, 02/02/04). This case, on its merits, would classify more on religious discriminatory grounds that that the employer cannot make employment related decisions based upon the religious beliefs of the employee in question. After an incident involving the employee and two other co-workers, the employer chose to punish the employee through such means as termination of employment. Such an action that would serve as a message to the employee that the employer, whether or directly or indirectly, was acting such a manner as to show an approach to differing religious belief that go against the societal norm of acceptable beliefs to be had. “In May 2003, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hull dismissed Sims lawsuit on the grounds that the decision to discharge Sims was made on inaccurate information and not done intentionally on the basis of her atheistic beliefs. However, in July 2003 Hull reinstated Sims lawsuit following a request for reconsideration by DeVault. DeVault argued that management at ACS afforded preferential treatment to the two women, who are Baptists, by granting their request to change workstations,” (Lane, 02/02/04). In consideration of the argument being made by De Vault, if preferential treatment were to have been given on the part of management as it comes to whether or not they sided with the Baptist employees in their complaint against a fellow employee that happened to be Atheist, that in itself would open up the discussion to a larger question of blatant discrimination on the workplace. In a time of war or peace, the nature of that which occurs in the military is something that brings about great public interest and commentary. As there are chaplains whose purposes it is to converse with and guide soldiers who are faced with emotional concerns, discriminatory practices can also occur for Atheists in such a grouping, at least in the case of one specific soldier for example. This soldier would serve his country with honor, but would find his spiritual faith in question in the process. Such a thing that can happen to many people throughout the course of their respective lifetimes, but for this soldier in question, would make him susceptible to that which he would classify as religious discrimination. As a military servicemen, he would feel the discrimination to a greater level personally from his standpoint as an enlisted service person. For a news piece on CNN.com, reporter Randy Kaye writes on this issue, “Army Spc. Jeremy Hall was raised Baptist. Like many Christians, he said grace before dinner and read the Bible before bed. Four years ago when he was deployed to Iraq, he packed his Bible so he would feel closer to God. He served two tours of duty in Iraq and has a near perfect record. But somewhere between the tours, something changed. Hall, now 23, said he no longer believes in God, fate, luck or anything supernatural. Hall said he met some atheists who suggested he read the Bible again. After doing so, he said he had so many unanswered questions that he decided to become an atheist. His sudden lack of faith, he said, cost him his military career and put his life at risk. Hall said his life was threatened by other troops and the military assigned a full-time bodyguard to protect him out of fear for his safety,” (Kaye, 07/09/08). Spc. Hall seeks to affirm his rights to religious beliefs under the first amendment, in this case being the freedom of the right for expression. Such rights that all employers, including the United States military, would be bound by such laws to uphold them as it comes to their employees. In this case, “Two years ago on Thanksgiving Day, after refusing to pray at his table, Hall said he was told to go sit somewhere else. In another incident, when he was nearly killed during an attack on his Humvee, he said another soldier asked him, "Do you believe in Jesus now?",” (Kaye, 07/09/08). Spc. Halls claims would fall under the first amendment, or the right to freedom of expression. Such rights that all employers, including the United States military, would be bound by such laws to uphold them as it comes to their employees. For the notion of the military to even place upon its enlisted a sense of abiding by the religious practices of one secular group and to believe in one secular god, would be a clear religious discrimination issues against those others, like Spc. Hall, who for one reason or another have fallen away from traditional Christianity for other belief systems that they feel more comfortable with. As the choice made of Spc. Hall would be more personal in nature and he had up until the moment of occurrence a solid military record as he puts it, the actions taken by other officers in uniform would be that of religious discrimination, rather than being a disciplinary measure meant to deal with a performance related issue(s). All of the above mentioned cases fall under the filing of claimants that have insisted they have been victims of religious discrimination on their part of prospective employers, present employers, or in the case of Spc. Hall, discrimination from both fellow co-workers as well as the employer itself. While at the time of hiring, employers are not allowed to make decision in regards to the allocation of employment based on the potential hires religious practices, they are bound to the consideration of making necessary accommodations for current employees spiritual tendencies as it comes to the workplace. In essence not giving preference, or seeking to persecute one religion or practice over another, but instead fostering an environment in which everyone feels comfortable to believe that which they choose to believe as long as it does not interfere with the day-to-day goings on of the company itself. An environment which growth and productivity can foster and develop without the hidden concern amongst those who feel a present, or hoped for work environment, will repress them through such means as acting against whatever religious beliefs which they hold inside their person. As the years go by and people continue to evolve, some things remain a constant force throughout modern society. One such thing is that of religious discrimination and how, to a degree, it factors in for those which it does. Having to find a common ground between the right to believe something and the opportunity to work. To have the right to earn a living, while being able practices the religious beliefs desired, is something that many find within themselves a sense of identifying with each other one. The key, when it comes down to it, is when, or if, the view tuns into discrimination. Works Cited “Court Rules for Employer in Religious Discrimination Case”. Published: July 23, 2002 URL: http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=3862 DelPo, Amy (Attorney). “Religious Discrimination in the Workplace: Employers must accommodate their employees religious beliefs-- within reason”. URL: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/C7AB0D98-9438-47D2-8D68115009B87244/ catID/DE34C24C-9CBE-42EF-917012F2F6758F92/111/259/283/ART/ Kaye, Randy. “Atheist soldier sues Army for unconstitutional discrimination”. AC360 Correspondent. Published: Wednesday, July 9, 2008. URL: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08 /atheist.soldier/ index.html Lane, Matthew. “CitiGroup settles religious discrimination lawsuit”. Date published: February 2, 2004. URL: http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/citi_settles.htm Plumb, Tierney. “Justice Department files religious discrimination suit against Metro”. Date Published: Wednesday, October 1, 2008. Washington Business Journal. URL: http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/09/29/daily45.html Read More