Workplace Discrimination - Coursework Example

Workplace Discrimination Workplace Discrimination Affiliation VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination inworkplace based on ethnicity, religion, color, race and country of origin. Hence, discrimination in any aspect of the employment is prohibited including hiring, recruitment, training, job duties, promotion advantages and firing. Under Title VII, workplace harassment on the basis of religion is also prohibited. This research essay discusses about the workplace discrimination and how an individual can protect his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they same is infringed by his employer. Workplace Discrimination Workplace Diversity Cultural diversity in the U.S. workforce is the hot topic of the day as U.S is witnessing the shifting of demographics of the U.S population, the deliberation over the affirmative action programs and drastic changes in immigration policy. Due to above factors, diversity in workplace in U.S, appears to be ubiquitous now. Multicultural diversity is a concept which encompasses economic status, age, family type, education, personality type, gender, religion, race, sexual orientation and geographic origin. Further, diversity means everything that makes one diverse from others which includes work styles and communication styles and further, all employees can now subscribe into the effort of a culture that sustains diversity. In a research study conducted by ‘The Society for Human Resources Management ‘revealed that diverse workplace had positive effect on the organizations’ profitability and recognized “diversity training” as a vital component of diversity efforts to improve the bottom-line of a business. Majority of the business that had been surveyed informed that they offered diversity training from CEO to office boy of the organization. One another research study on diverse workforce perused by the ‘SHRM /Fortune’ recognized the following down line findings from diversity efforts. About 80% of the surveyed were of the opinion that diversity had enhanced the corporate culture. About 78% were of the opinion that it resulted in an improved recruitment. About 52% opined that it augmented their client relations. About 41% opined that it resulted in higher employee retention. (Nixon, Judy C 2000). Advantages of diverse workplace: The main advantage of having a diverse workplace is that one may have different types of peoples all working together to achieve the common pursuit for the business. Workers from variety of backgrounds bring different experiences and talents that can create new vistas, may respond to changing customer preferences and market demands and may inherit new talents and skills. Businesses that encompass diversity in the workplace also initiate their employees to yield result at their highest ability. Stratagems can be implemented to make employees to perform well which connotes a higher return on investment. If a multinational company wants to do business with some sectors of community at different places of the globe, their employees should thoroughly understand not only the local language but also to be acquaint with the cultural diversities of that population. Today, diversity in workplace has become a strategic business issue. Diversity management is the practice of management through which each employee’s contribution is evaluated in achieving the organizational goals. In survey conducted by ‘The Conference Board’ in 131 U.S companies , about 41% of the business considered the diversity as a competitive opportunity and about 25% of the company regarded it as “ ingredient of good management.’ Just about 4% of the companies were of the opinion that it does not have any relevance. Having diverse workforce will bring organizational benefits like enhanced decision-making and problem solving , expanding into new consumer markets , improved product development and the capability to vie in global market. Thus, by employing diverse employees will definitely fetch prosperity to the business and helps to manage the language barriers by understanding the cultural behaviors and societal variances. Embracing the diversity in a business does not connote that there will be ever prolonging bliss. In a diversified workplace, all employees will speak one analogous language of business, profitability and return on investment. (Reyes 2008). Religious discrimination in workplace Religious discrimination can be explained as limitations placed on the religious practices or restrictions placed on a religious minority in a nation that are not imposed on those of the majority religion. To constitute a religious discrimination, it should have two component namely differential treatment and prejudice. It also refers to the treatment that differentiates between the minority and majority group. Some nations do suppress, supervise and control all religion within their territories and the study of such behavior is a significant effort. Thus, nations can be classified as anti-religious states and pro-religious states. Pro-religious are nations which tend to suppress the minorities religious practices whereas anti-religious nation is one which restricts all religious practices. However, religious discrimination in work place in this research study centers around restrictions imposed on minority religious practices in workplaces. (Jonathan Fox 2007). There has been steady increase in the religious discrimination abuses between 1990 and 2002. It is strange to note that the other type of human rights violations have reduced considerably whereas religious discrimination during the above period have increased sharply. It is to be observed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination in workplace based on ethnicity, religion, color, race and country of origin. Hence, discrimination in any aspect of the employment is prohibited including hiring, recruitment, training, job duties, promotions and firing. Under Title VII, workplace harassment on the basis of religion is also prohibited. The employers also barred from retaliatory activities like harassing an employee as he has involved in protected movement which includes making a complaint , testifying , helping or assisting in any mode in an investigation , or protesting a discriminatory policy. Under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an employer is under obligation to offer a rational accommodation especially for religious practices. An employer may be exempted from this if he proves that by providing such accommodation would result in unjustified hardship. Provisions of Title VII are mandatory for the employers who have more than 15 employees. For instance, if a company engages a Sikh individual of South Asia origin, it should clearly warn to its employees and managers that religious based discrimination or national origin will not be tolerated at any cost by the company in any features of employment including while hiring. Thus, an employer should give more significance to the qualification of an individual while making any recruiting decision and not on their race, religion or nationality. For instance , if Ayatollah is working as an employee with an used car dealer and if any co-employee or a supervisor or a manager chides him in front of customers or calling him by nick name like “local terrorist “ , “Bin Laden” or “Camel Jockey” and these will be considered as objectionable workplace conduct. (EEOC, 2005) Thus, supervisors and managers who come to know about abhorrent workplace behavior based on either nationality or on religion are responsible for initiating steps to rectify the demeanor of any one under their authority. Thus, Ayatollah’s manager should investigate the incident and if he founds that there is sufficient evidence for harassment, he should recommend to the management to take disciplinary action against the employee who has harassed Ayatollah. Such disciplinary action will act as a deterrent for the prevention of such harassment in future. It should be noted that harassment at workplace and its costs are most often avoidable. Management should have concise and effective policies restraining religious and ethnic slurs. Management should give enough protection to whistle blowers who are witness to such harassment who come forward to give their evidence or to act as an eye witness. Management should focus on action for putting a full stop for such harassment and to correct its outcomes on the complaining employee. Accommodation for religious prayers or rituals. It is the duty of the employer to offer a suitable accommodation that caters their employee’s religious needs without disturbing their day-to-day work. If the management is of the view that conference room is required for their business needs, it may refuse it for personal religious purpose. Further, prayer may be allowed to be performed during lunch breaks or during intermission so that it will not affect the productivity of the employee. It is the discretion of the management to provide accommodation for performing religious rituals at the work place. For instance, if extending accommodation for five employees would not result in undue adversity but if giving accommodation to the sixth may impose such hardship, then sixth request could be turned down. Dress Code A Muslim woman wearing hijab (head scarf) should not be denied the opportunity to work in the front desk claiming that her religious attire infringes company’s dress code and offers the “wrong image” to its customers. Such deeds will be infringing of the provisions of Title VII. Thus, management should allow the Muslim woman to wear hijab during the front desk duty by way of religious accommodation. Employees background investigation and Screening procedures; A Muslim may be asked to undergo the analogous pre-employment security checks which are also applicable to other applicants for the same job position. A management cannot perform screening procedures or other background investigations in a discriminatory style. If a check is a mandatory process under an Executive order or under federal statute, then it may be conducted on Muslim applicant without any deviation and the same will not be construed as religious discriminatory measure. Under Article 9 (2) of the European Commission on Human Rights Convention, there are different ways in which employers will be able to accommodate the religious practices of their employees. For instance, the ECHR directive is likely to make sure that if a Christian employee is allowed to wear a cross, a Sikh employee will be permitted to wear his turban, a Jew his yarmulke, a Rastafarian to wear his dreadlocks at work place. There exist already evidences that businesses are relaxing their compulsory dress code mainly due to inter-faith harmony. For instance, Domino’s Pizzas, the fast food chain, has liberalized its dress code by allowing its employees to have beards on the complaints made by a Sikh applicant. Likewise, United Airlines have made it possible for their employees to wear hijab, turbans, and yarmulkes as part and parcel of their company uniform. (Nazia et al, 2003, 172). U.S Department of State started to issue annual reports on religious freedom since 1999. Thus, U.S Department of State has detailed infringement of religious rights in the context of general human right infringement in their annual human rights report. In the last four decades, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EECO) has safeguarded the country’s employees from unlawful workplace discrimination. As the country’s workplaces have become more complex and diverse , the discrimination what we are witnessing today is of more subtle in nature and at the same time, it is not so pernicious and this put tremendous pressure on EEOC to foster new efforts to combat this traditional harm that manifests itself in new avatars. Statistics Religious discrimination allegations which were reported to EEOC in U.S.A have tremendously increased from 1,338 cases in 1992 to 2,541 cases in 2006. Table -1- EEOC Litigations Statistics from Financial year 1997 through Financial Year 2007 Suits with the Title VII Claims 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 182 254 341 236 289 268 298 297 295 294 268 Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/litigation.html Immediately after 9/11 attack, there have been considerable increase in the number of charges asserting discrimination footed on national origin or religion. Majority of the complaints have been received mainly from Arab, Sikh, Muslim and South Asian in U.S. These aggrieved generally complain that there is harassment and expulsion in the work place. Case Studies In AT&T v. Jose Gonzalez and Glenn Owen1 , AT&T was asked to pay $ 756,000 as back pay and compensatory damages to the defendants who were fired from service earlier for attending a Jehovah’s Witnesses Convention. In this case, the former employees of AT&T were asked to choose between either their job or religion and Title VII does not require that an employee makes such selection in order to sustain gainful employment. In EEOC v. Alamo Car Rental2, a Phoenix jury awarded more than $ 286,000 to Bilan Nur, an erstwhile Somali customer sales representative who was sacked from the employment for denying to remover her head scarf during the Ramadan Muslim holy month. This is the first workplace religious discriminatory case during post -9/11 attack initiated in Phoenix. The court held that in six years, Alamo prolonged to refuse and it declined to accommodate Ms. Nur’s religious sentiments and even dismissed her. It is to be recalled that Title VII safeguards the religious commitments and principles and no one is needed to sacrifice their religious beliefs so as to be in an employment. In EEOC v.University of Phoenix, Inc and Apollo Group Inc, it was held by Federal District Court Judge that it had arrived at a consent degree for nearly $ 2million and substantial remedial relief against defendants. The award had to be shared among 52 affected individuals. It was complained that defendant engaged in far-flung practice of discriminating against non-Mormon employees who were employed as enrollment counselors with the University. It was proved that University engaged in favoritism to Mormon employees in giving leads on prospective students, in giving promotion and having declined for tuition waivers to non-Mormon employees. This decision sends a warning signal to all employers to be cautious in making sure that a fair and equitable work culture is existing for all employees irrespective of their religion.3 In EEOC v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc,4 wherein a settlement was arrived. The defendant agreed to pay $150,000 as damages to its erstwhile employee Edward Rangel, who had religious inscriptions in the form of tattoos in his hand. It was contended by EEOC that Red Robin refused to accommodate the religious requirements of an employee and then later firing him illegally. Red Robin cited that its dress code forbids employees from having noticeable tattoos. Rangel requested the management to offer him an exemption from dress code and to accommodate his religious faith. It was the contention of the Red Robin if Rangel could not wrap his tattoos, it would be nice for him to search employment somewhere. It is to be remembered that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 obliges employers to make reasonable accommodation to have their religious sentiments unless it would create undue difficulties to the business. Before arriving at a settlement, the Court cautioned Red Robin to substantiate its undue hardship claim with more than conjectural difficulties footed on unestablished presumptions. In Powell v. Yellow Book U.S.A, the U.S appellate court held that if a management permitted an employee to keep religious preaching posted in her cubicle and that action could not be conceived as religious discrimination. According to the court, the material did not infringe company policy and management cannot be compelled to disallow the posting of religious preaching material in the workplace just because it is being objected by an employee. The U.S Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in this religious harassment claim upheld the lower court’s findings. It held that Yellow Book’s reaction was both reasonable and prompt. The Court further observed that an employer has no legal duty to crush any or all religious materials merely because it irritates a single employee. (Teresa Anderson, 2007, 105). Conclusion Thus ,having diverse workforce will bring organizational benefits like enhanced decision-making and problem solving , expanding to new consumer markets , improved product development and the capability to vie in global market. Thus, by employing diverse employees will definitely fetch prosperity to the business and helps to manage the language barriers by understanding the cultural behaviors and societal variances. Embracing the diversity in a business does not connote that there will be ever prolonging bliss. In a diversified workplace, all employees will speak one analogous language of business, profitability and return on investment. (Reyes 2008). In view of the above case laws, employers should not indulge in workplace discrimination else he would be prosecuted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. References Anderson, T. (2007, April). Religious Discrimination. Security Management, 51, 105+. Dipboye, R. L. & Colella, A. (Eds.). (2005). Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and Organizational Bases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Estlund, C. (2003). EEOC (2005). Questions and Answers about Employers Responsibility. Retrieved December 5, 2008 from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/backlash-employer.html EEOC (2007). AT&T To pay $ 756,000.Retrieved on December 5, 2008 from http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-23-07.html Fox, J. (2007). Religious Discrimination: A World Survey. Journal of International Affairs, 61(1), 47+. John Jude Moran Employment Law (4th Edition) Prentice Hall. Nixon, Judy C (2000). America addresses work force diversity. (Growing Importance). Business Forum. Reyes, Wilson “Wil” (2008). Embracing Diversity: Bringing Advantage of Different Cultures to the Workplace. Indiana Business Magazine. Working Together: How Workplace Bonds Strengthen a Diverse Democracy /. New York: Oxford University Press. Annotated Bibliography Anderson, T. (2007, April). Religious Discrimination. Security Management, 51, 105+. In this journal article, religious discrimination in workplace has been vividly discussed. Dipboye, R. L. & Colella, A. (Eds.). (2005). Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and Organizational Bases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Estlund, C. (2003). This article consists of lot of useful information on workplace diversity. EEOC (2005). Questions and Answers about Employers Responsibility. Retrieved December 5, 2008 from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/backlash-employer.html This is the official website of Equal Employment Oppurtunity Commission of U.S.A. From the above question and answers, I have taken most illustrations like dress code , workplace religious discrimination. EEOC (2007). AT&T To pay $ 756,000.Retrieved on December 5, 2008 from http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-23-07.html This case has been detailed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of U.S.A in its official website. Fox, J. (2007). Religious Discrimination: A World Survey. Journal of International Affairs, 61(1), 47+. This journal article gives useful statistical data’s on religious discrimination on global level. John Jude Moran Employment Law (4th Edition) Prentice Hall. Nixon, Judy C (2000). America addresses work force diversity. (Growing Importance). Business Forum. This is a useful journal article where many of survey made on workplace discrimination has been discussed. Reyes, Wilson “Wil” (2008). Embracing Diversity: Bringing Advantage of Different Cultures to the Workplace. Indiana Business Magazine. In this journal article, it has been emphasized that workplace diversity will increase bottom-line of the business and productivity. Working Together: How Workplace Bonds Strengthen a Diverse Democracy /. New York: Oxford University Press. This book consists of useful illustrations on workplace diversity. Read More