U.S. Diversity Law and Organizational Compliance
“The most dangerous leap is the leap to conclusions” (Kroll, 2015, para. 7). Leaping to conclusions is what led the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Frederic Jones (Jones) to sue Alliant Techsystems (Alliant) in 1998. The allegations against Alliant were violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII); specifically the refusal to accommodate Jones’ religious beliefs. The legal action was a result of Alliant’s interpretation of Jones’ reasoning behind his request, his religious beliefs, and the desire to acquire union fees. Title VII does not limit religious beliefs to only traditional religions but extends the definition to ethical and moral beliefs as well (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.a). More often than not, the law is a gray area that judges must decipher to determine which party is right and which is wrong, EEOC v. Alliant Techsystems is no different.
EEOC v. Alliant Techsystems
EEOC v. Alliant Techsystems is a result of Alliant refusing to honor Jones’ request for his union dues to go to a charity of his choice. Jones, an employee of Alliant since 1974, was a union member who at times volunteered to be a shop steward. In 1985, Jones witnessed an explosion in his division that killed two of his co-workers (EEOC v. Alliant Techsystems, 1998). As a result of his experience, Jones’ faith grew stronger over the years, eventually leading to his opposition of belonging to nonreligious groups. As a result of his conflict, Jones stepped down from the position of shop steward and discontinued his payment of union dues (EEOC v. Alliant Techsystems, 1998).
Alliant’s union did not have a union security clause requiring employee...
... middle of paper ...
...rooted issue was the disregard of a person’s religious, ethical, or moral beliefs to accommodate the union’s financial agenda. There was no proof of undue hardship and yet, the union did not reasonably accommodate Jones. It was not the union’s right to determine Jones’ motives as political instead of religious.
Conclusion
The judge of EEOC v. Alliant Techsystems saw the gray area of this case as a little darker than most. Although the topics of debate were not black and white, the basis of the claim was clear: Jones’ religious beliefs were ignored initiating a Title VII violation. Decades of a struggle against discrimination and the laws to support the fight still cannot break down the barriers of ignorance and personal gain. In the end, leaping to conclusions led to Alliant’s guilt of failing to reasonably accommodate Jones and was ordered to provide relief.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
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)
The Court held that failing to accommodate a potential employee or an employee was enough to bring up a disparate treatment claim. It held that in order to make a claim based on disparate impact the plaintiff needs only to prove that the need for accommodation was the motive behind the employer’s refusal to hire them, not whether the employer knew about this need. Therefore, the Court determined that rather than imposing a knowledge standard, like the 10th Circuit Court did, motive was enough to violate Title VII since Abercrombie knew or suspected that Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons and did not want to accommodate her. “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions” (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., 2015). Finally, the Court held because of the description that Title VII gives for religion, it places religion as a protected class and therefore asks that it be given favored treatment over other
The Court in the 6th Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that his former employer, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), was liable under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by deliberately discriminating against him under both the disparate impact and disparate treatment analyses.
The question at stake was if a plaintiff could bring forth a suit of salary discrimination under Title VII when the unequal salary a person received during the 180-day limit prescribed in the provisions is ultimately the result of a long period of discrimination that reached far beyond the statutory limitations . Justice Alito delivered the majority opinion that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts that her failure to file with the EEOC when she first felt like her salary was based on discriminatory actions did not allow her special considerations for because she felt that her pay discrimination was not the same as other types of employment discriminations; however, they believed her claim to be untimely as a decision regarding pay has to do with a particular point in time, which in this case would only be permissible in the 180 days and the pay period after she filed the
Her refusal causes confusion because of the technicality that it is interpreted as not following the law, but the law also shouldn’t cause her to act against her beliefs. Both the defendant and the plaintiff have rights that they feel are being stepped on. The similarities to the Brown v. Board of Education case is not only because it ended up going to the supreme court level, but because it is seen as a matter of equality even though it might be contrary to people’s religious beliefs.
Upon agreeing to these rules put in place, they enforced them during any type of school-sponsored event. The defendants say that the IISD board was unaware of any type of anti-discrimination policy that was put in place; there was concern that the IISD did not formally put into place the associations’ formal policy of discrimination, because of the close relationship of the TIWA, TWOA, and IISD schools. These policies put into place by TIWA and TWOA are “state action.” The plaintiffs’ claims for compensatory damages are allowed to proceed to trial because they have presented the substantial evidence where it could be found in their favor if presented to a rational
Disparate Impact arises when an employer's practices unintentionally excludes a protected class disproportionately (Player, Shoben and Lieberwitz, 1995). A "protected class" is a group of people, with common characteristics, which Congress has determined must be protected from inequality ("On-the-Job Discrimination: Gender Discrimination," 2004). This paper will analyze the landmark disparate impact case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424, 1971) from its beginning to its conclusion in the Supreme Court. Included will be the facts of the case and the issues detailed, as well as the history of the case from initial filing to final ruling.
In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.
The school had a tradition of delivering overtly christian prayers before every football game. One Mormon family, as well as one Catholic family filed a lawsuit, claiming that these prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While the lawsuit was pending, the District Court created a new policy, stating that student initiated, nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer was permitted, not required, and that two student elections to determine if the prayers should take place, and then to decide who would lead the prayer. The case reached the Supreme Court by March, 2000. The plaintiffs were permitted to file as John/Jane Does, and the Defendant was the Santa Fe Independent School District (SFISD). SFISD claimed that the prayers were private student speech, not public, and that they were not required by the school. Doe argued that these prayers were done in a public setting, and therefore violated Establishment Clause. In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that praying at a football game was public speech, these prayers violated the establishment clause. Justice Stevens, part of the majority, wrote “Such speech is not properly characterized as "private,"” and that the district helping these prayers to happen was a form of government endorsing
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, is specific to this case concerning Marwan’s conduct and is clearly stated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This regulation protects employees against workplace discrimination on the basis of gender, race, creed, origin and religion and relates to all employers whether local, state or national. Organizations that employ fifteen or more employees has to stand by this regulation (Civil Rights Act, n.d.). According to this law, a commission called Equal Employment Opportunities Commission has been arranged, to protect individuals in contradiction of discrimination and enforce this as well as additional pertinent laws such as discrimination. Discrimination within the workplace has been in existence for a long time and was initiated by the U.S. Authorities once hearing several cases of harassment. The discrimination law protects applicants, employers and employees. The law states that no employer can take recruitment decision solely on the basis of the race, origin, gender, handicap of the applicant and is unable to take favor over anyon...
The editorial “A Case of Discrimination” published in the New York Times claims the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Hastings College of Law over the student group Christian Legal Society. The authors state the college has always had a non-discrimination policy that applied to all student groups and required them not to discriminate to receive official recognition from the college. They argue that Christian Legal Society had previously adhered to this policy and then in 2004 began to ask members to sign a statement of faith. Due to this, Hastings College of Law derecognized the student group and they sued claiming a denial of their First Amendment rights. Hastings College of Law wrote their policy to conform to California state law, which makes it illegal for state funded post-secondary educational institutions to discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation. Therefore, Hastings College of Law decided it was illegal for their student groups to discriminate as well. The Ninth Circuit decided in favor of Hastings College of Law declaring their rules viewpoint neutral and reasonable (1). Although the claim appears logical, actual evidence in support of their argument is difficult to find. Thus, their conclusion is probably false, because a decision in favor of Hastings College of Law denies their student groups their First Amendment rights and ignores years of legal precedent.
Living in a country where it was founded by immigrants, diversity is everywhere you go especially in the workplace. There are many types of diversity; ethnicity, gender, religion and age just to name a few. Working in a diverse organization it can give you a taste of the real world, and what you will deal with wherever you go. There is so much diversity in the world today so it is a benefit to experience it in the workplace as well. You are given the chance to learn so many things from different cultures, why wouldn't you want to work in a diverse organization?
For the purpose of this paper, I will define what the term Diversity means, and then I will concentrate on the diversity as a result of geographic origin or ethnic diversity. I will look at how ethnic diversity is managed generally and then how my employer, deals with the diverse ethnic groups in its organization and what it needs to improve on.
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.