Case Assignment 11– Mary Myers vs. New York Transit Authority
Issue Upon accepting a position to work for the New York Transit Authority, Mary Myers was forthright in informing her supervisor(s) know that she was unable to work any sundown Fridays to sundown Saturdays. (Feazell, 2003) As it relates to keeping “the Sabbath”, sundown Friday to sundown Saturday adherence to set aside this time period for rest and worship. (Feazell, 2003) Consequently, after Ms. Myer begin working for Transit Authority, her scheduled hours were involuntary changed, and she was then required to work on the Sabbath. (Feazell, 2003)
Nonetheless, the case of Mary Myers vs. New York Transit Authority questions, whether a violation the Title VII for an employer to refuse to accommodate Mary Myer’s Sabbath observance? Also, would the accommodation cause the employer to infringe an agreement in collective bargaining?
Rule
In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any hiring, terminating, and other terms and conditions of employment utilized as means of religious discrimination against an employees is prohibited. Unless, the workers religious request was causing their employer undue hardship. These acts are mandated that employers reasonably accommodate their full time employees’. Reasonable
…show more content…
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)
Within reason, the New York Transit Authority was required to facilitate Mary Myers’s observance of her
The ADA prohibits employer discrimination against qualified individuals with a disability in regard to application procedures, hiring and firing, promotions, pay, training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment (Hernandez, 2001). This applies to the entire range of employer-employee relationships, including testing, work assignments, discipline, leave, benefits, and lay-offs. In addition, the ADA prohibits retaliation against individuals w...
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
Therefore, the job could have been done by either of the genders that applied. For this reason, the defense of the airline company was compromised. This led to the court’s decision that the placement of discriminating conditions such as the maximum height rule and the hiring of attractive female candidates only was a violation of Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Indeed, the unlawful and impermissible discrimination exercised by the airline company denied the male applicants the above mentioned privileges and thus was a just cause of action taken by Gregory R.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits most of the discrimination and harassment in the workplaces. The provision of the Title VII covers all the state, local government, private employees as well as educational institutions that have at least 15 employees or more. The Act prohibits any discrimination that may be meted against the individuals on the basis of the origin, religion, sex, color, race, and national origin (http://topics.hrhero.com/title-vii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/).
...iscrimination will not occur. It is also important to post some of the Title VII laws, so that employees will understand what to do in case they feel they have been discriminated against.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against employment discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Moran, 2014, p. 164). This helps ensure fair treatment to all workers. To ensure the safety of all workers, Title VII also protects against harassment, which includes quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment harassment, religious harassment, and racial harassment.
I found an interesting article that explain more as to how they have a double edged sword. “ Under the laws enforced by the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal to discriminate against a potential employee because of that person’s race, color, religion, age, or disabilities. However, there are slight nuances to these rules. For example, under the same laws an employer can require all workers to follow a uniform dress code, even if it conflicts with some workers ethnic or religious practices, as long as the dress code is not treating specific employees less favorably than others because of their practices” (Daly). So A&F can say that none of its employees are to wear any type of head coverings however they cannot apply this rule to an employee, or potential employee like Samantha for wearing her hijabs. While it is extremely insensitive and shallow it really isn’t
Some religious discrimination cases can be technical, while others can be ambiguous. However, in the following case, the level of discrimination can clearly and easily be detected. In 2011, the EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of Umme-Hani Khan (plaintiff) agains...
Religious Freedom Restoration Act In this paper I will describe the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This Act was used to contradict the decision of the court case of Employment Division v. Smith, which allowed the government to forbid any religious act without giving a reason. The RFRA brought back the requirement that the government provide an adequate reason to forbid any religious act. The government once again had to show that the act was of compelling interest to the state.
This change is not so silent today. Roberts and Stratton show that, "quotas are based on an intentional misreading of Title VII and are strictly illegal under the 1964 Civil Rights Act." An explicit example of this intentional misreading, or abuse, of the Civil Rights Act is when a person is fired to fulfill a quota.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is one of the most significant laws in American History. Before the ADA was passed, employers were able to deny employment to a disabled worker, simply because he or she was disabled. With no other reason other than the person's physical disability, they were turned away or released from a job. The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. The act guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, State and local government services, and telecommunications. The ADA not only opened the door for millions of Americans to get back into the workplace, it paved the road for new facilities in the workplace, new training programs, and created jobs designed for a disabled society (Frierson, 1990). This paper will discuss disabilities covered by the ADA, reasonable accommodations employers must take to accommodate individuals with disabilities, and the actions employers can take when considering applicants who have disabilities.
Ernesto Miranda grew up not finishing high school. He didn’t finish the 9th grade, and he decided to drop out of school during that year. He also had a criminal record and had pronounced sexual fantasies after dropping out of high school. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix in 1963. He had raped an 18 yr. girl who was mildly mentally handicapped in March of 1963. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. When he was found and arrested, and he was not told of his rights before interrogation. After two hours of interrogation, the cops and detectives had a written confession from Miranda that he did do the crimes that he was acquitted for. Miranda also had a history mental instability, and had no counsel at the time of the trial. The prosecution at the trial mainly used his confession as evidence. Miranda was convicted of both counts of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He tried to appeal to the Supreme Court in
Commission for Labor Cooperation (2002) “ United States Labor Law.” Viewed online on 11/18/2004 at http://www.naalc.org/english/publications/labormain.htm
According to Corley, Reed, Shedd, and Morehead, (2001) “the most important statue eliminating discriminatory employment practices, however, is the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act o 1972 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.” The appropriation section o...
...ws the "equal opportunity harasser" who discriminates on both male and female employees to be beyond the scope of Title VII since the harassment is not because of sex.