Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Religion ethics in business
A paper done on religion in the workplace
Freedom of religion and belief in the workplace
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Religion ethics in business
In a Los Angeles Times article entitled “Hold the Hijab,” the author argues that a company with a history of strict clothing guidelines has the authority to restrict its employees from wearing religious head coverings. This directly applies to a recent court case where Disneyland fired a Muslim woman from the Storyteller’s Café. This woman, Imane Boudlal, refused to follow Disney’s dress guidelines by wearing her hijab to work. Thus, Disney rightly fired Boudlal for a variety of reasons, the author argues. Firstly, a company like Disneyland Resort pays extreme attention to detail through its decorations, music and costumes. By allowing an employee to wear a turban or hijab at an attraction where these articles of clothing do not fit would “diminish the carefully crafted sense of leaving the real world behind” (“Hold the Hijab”). Furthermore, most restaurants require hostesses to follow loose clothing guidelines. In some restaurants, modesty is required while in others immodesty. If a restaurant’s guidelines required hostesses to dress immodestly and the hostess refused for religious reasons, the company wouldn’t allow it. Thus, Disney’s reasoning to adhere to their dress policy is congruent with other restaurants’ policies. In addition, Disney’s strict dress policy is a business tactic that applies to all employees, not just Muslims. When employees sign their contract, they agree to “refrain from wearing religious items” and adhere to the dress code (“Hold the Hijab”). However, Disney does reasonably accommodate religious practices as long as they fit with the attraction theme. In the case of Boudlal, Disney provided her with an alternate costume with a higher neckline and headgear to cover her hair and neck. Since B...
... middle of paper ...
...14.
“AB-1964 Discrimination in Employment: Reasonable Accommodations.” Bill Text AB 1964. California Legislative Information, 8 Sept. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
“Hold the Hijab.” Hold the Hijab -- Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 24 Aug. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
McGreevy, Patrick. “Bill Protects Religious Garb, Grooming in the Workplace.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 09 Sept. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
“Muslim Former Employee Sues Disney for Discrimination.” ACLU of Southern California. ACLU and ACLU Foundation of Southern California, 13 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
Ninan, Reena. “Muslim Fired by Abercrombie for Head Scarf Says Policy 'Very Unfair’” ABC News. ABC News Network, 10 Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
"Religious Accommodation in the Workplace: Your Rights and Obligations." ADL Religious Accommodation. Anti-Defamation League, 2012. Web. 7 May 2014.
New York Transit Authority, the employer is required by the law to reasonably accommodate Ms. Myers religious beliefs. (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2015) An employee’s every desire request is not required by the guidelines prescribed in Title VII. (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2015) If accomodating Ms. Myers would have caused undue hardship to the employer, the New York Transit Authority, reserves the right to limit its accommodation. (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2015)
Facts of the Case: In 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., who as part of their “Look Policy” prohibit the use of caps. Elauf, as part of her religious practice, wore a headscarf to the interview. She was interviewed by assistant manager Heather Cooke, who gave her a score that qualified her to be hired. Cooke, however, was worried that Elauf’s headscarf was against the store’s policy and called her district manager Randall Johnson. She informed Johnson of her belief that Elauf wore her headscarf because of her religion, and Johnson replied that headwear, whether it was religious or not, violated the “Look Policy” of the store.
Do your employers’ religious beliefs interfere with your life, or does your life interfere with your employers religious practices? You probably will have the same religious beliefs, as your employer, if you work at a church or some other religious organization. However, imagine you are a women employee who works for a closely held, for-profit company, such as Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby provides health insurance, but does not cover your birth control, due to the business’ religious beliefs, and the lawsuit they won. Do you agree with their decision or do you believe they are treating you unfairly, because they are not giving you the full privilege of health care coverage, disregarding your employer’s religious beliefs? With
Under Title VII the employer doesn’t have to resolve conflict in the way the employee wants. According to the book, the employer can discriminate against an employee for religious reasons if it causes undue hardships (490). Also if the employer finds out an employee has a conflict between their religion and employee’s policy, the employer is required to provide accommodation. If “accommodation isn’t possible, the employer can implement the policy” (490). In Clarissa’s case, the headmaster can provide any type of accommodation if it doesn’t cause undue hardship. Once accommodations have been provided to Clarissa, if she doesn’t want to comply she can leave the job. It doesn’t matter if Clarissa doesn’t like the way the headmaster implements the accommodations, as long as the headmaster provides accommodations.
Preston, Julia. “Lawsuit Filed in Support of Muslim Scholar Barred From US.” New York Times. Jan 26th 2006: A18
Department of Defense, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. (2014).Accommodation of religious practices within the military services (DoDI 1300.17). Retrieved from website: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130017p.pdf
Religious Discrimination according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, involves treating a person (applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. It can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to or associated with an individual of a particular religion or because of his or her connection with a religious organization/group. Today, most twenty-first century managers are familiar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that failing or refusing to accommodate an employee’s religious practices, or taking adverse employment action based on a person’s religion can result in charges of discrimination (EEOC). Therefore, managers should not use or inquire about an individual’s religious beliefs unless an accommodation is requested.
In 2013 the Quebec government proposed a ban on religious symbols displayed by employees in the workplace. This amendment to the Quebec Values Charter would affect teachers, doctors, and even government officials, forcing them to remove and conceal their religious symbols when in the workplace. The Quebec government believed that this propaganda was taking away from Quebec’s identity, and that when paired with the uniforms for different jobs can be taken as a sign of disrespect towards Canada and the acceptance it shows to its citizens.
Fatemeh Fakhraie’s essay “Scarfing it Down,” explains how Muslim women suffer because of what they wear. Fakhraie blogs about Muslim women in her website she explains; “Seeing ourselves portrayed in the media in ways that are one-dimensional and misleading." Several people judge Muslim's by their appearance because they assume they're a bad person. The author of this essay wants the reader to know that Muslim women wearing a hijab are not a threat to the world.
The article “Faith in the workplace”, featured in The Economist, is about a new admonition that came up last month from America’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which stated that last year there were 3, 721 religious discrimination cases in the workforce, which makes the year 2013 with the most amount of religious discrimination cases. Therefore they enforced a law, because it’s a human right for firms to respect their workers and provide them with religious needs, that all the bosses and managers of the Western part of the world, must respect and have to allow their employees to display their religious faiths and beliefs and let them practice it while at work, for example: letting Muslim women wearing their Hijab (head scarf), letting people celebrate their special holidays. That is why all Business firms and companies have changed their rules in order to meet employee’s expectations such Abercrombie Fitch, because if they don’t meet their expectations and discriminate them they will have suffer from lawsuits and so on.
The legislation aspires to prohibit public-sector employees from wearing “objects such as headgear, clothing, jewelry or other religious affiliation”. These objects include items such as kippahs, turbans, hijabs, and large crucifixes. This ban would be intended to apply to all civil servants, including individuals such as teachers, doctors, nurses and police offiercers (Jake Flanagin, The Atlantic). At a hearing for Bill 60, Michelle Blanc, who is a transgender woman, spoke in support of the Bill, appealing to Quebecers' pro-LGBT feelings. “When I see a veil, the mental image I have is all of the gays who were hung high and low in the public square... in certain Arab countries”, Blanc had stated. Although same-sex relationships and the importance of being accepting of all religions have been two of the most controversial and highly debated topics, it is definitely not the right step to attack the Muslim religion and specific Arab countries in an attempt to defend Bill 60. Much like it is innapropriate to accuse the LGBT community of being anti-religion, it is equally innapropriate to accuse an entire religion for the horrible act of the hanging of gays in certain Arab countries. Not all gays are
"7 Myths About Arizona's Religious Freedom Law." Breitbart News Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.
I strongly believe that religious accommodations have positive and negative impact for the businesses. The religious accommodation required specific scheduling and change work assignments. For instance, my mom worked in Provena Mercy Medical Center in Aurora, Emily Herrmann, manager of Alverno Laboratories said, “She understands the needs of employees and accommodates their needs.” Because employees have to work Sundays, some of them are capabl...
Faith in the workplace and the level of accommodations employers should allow is an increasing problem. Moreover, the influx of people from different backgrounds bringing with them different religious practices has caused organizations to seek help from organizations such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the courts, and legal firms on how to deal with this new reality. Thus, the complexities surrounding religion and spirituality in the workplace and recommendations on the cause and solutions were examined.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Religious Discrimination as part of the Civil Rights Act is the subject of this term paper.