WGU- JDT2 Human Resources TASK 1 -Highly Rated Work
IF You Want To Purchase A+ Work Then
Click The Link Below , Instant Download
If You Face Any Problem E- Mail Us
At JohnMate1122@gmail.com
Memorandum
concerning alleged religious discrimination
Religious discrimination is similar to all discrimination and yet completely
different.
Discrimination is broadly
defined by giving preferential treatment or undue hardship on another
person due to their
religion, physical impairment, race, marital status, ethnic back ground or a
number of other reasons.
Religious discrimination is more difficult to access by appearance than
say physical impairment. A
person in a wheel chair or with a foreign accent is easy to distinguish
as in a protected class.
Religious beliefs are the individual’s beliefs and it is only the individual
that knows this belief.
This fact puts more burden of evidence on the plaintiff. This is a choice
that the individual is allowed
to change at any given moment. We must allow these choices to be
made and accommodate but
we must be made aware of the conflict.
Religious discrimination is the lowest of all EEOC claims but this number has
doubled in
recent years (EEOC
compliance Manual, 2008). It is obvious by the rapid increase in claims that
a potential for unseen
lawsuits may be developing within our organization without our deliberate
attempt or without our
knowledge. During World War II, the United States confined thousands
of US citizens of Japanese
descent. Currently, the climate in our country is one of discontent
with those of Muslim
backgrounds or appearing of Arab descent. This fear by outsiders of those
cultures stems from
terrorist activities committed by that religious or ethnic group. This fear
began on September 11, 2001
when a major attack was perpetrated by those of Arab descent
upon the American people. That
fear and reprisals is most likely a catalyst for the spike in
religious discrimination
claims. This known result of war demands that we as leaders in our
industry make an example
for others as to our commitment to abide by the laws of our land.
We cannot read employees minds
but we are obligated to accommodate what we are
aware of. An employee can
file a law suit by perceived discrimination without justification.
We must be aware that this risk
to our profitability and reputation can easily be remedied.
This memorandum is being prepared with the intent to highlight the points of
law that
pertain in a lawsuit which was
filed against our company and our alleged indiscretions. These
indiscretions could have
occurred by either our ignorance of or deliberate violation of federal
law. I wish to share some
case law on the subject to determine if it was our ignorance or our
clear violation of the law.
With limited specifics about the alleged complaint, I will concentrate
on following the letter of the
law. I would not consider myself an expert in these matters.
It is common sense for
most people to treat others as you would like to be treated. The
laws and court decisions have
followed this ideology. The main differentiation between treating
other’s as individual’s and the
Equal Employment Opportunities Act provisions is different. As
employer’s we are held to
a higher standard. It is not just the civil rights act that we must
contend ourselves with, it is
the separate federal legislation that pertains to employment. This is
the law that we must
abide by. It has become a common standard of employer’s who wish to
recruit desired employee’s to
treat employees with indifference towards their personal
background including but
not limited to their religious preferences.
The term Constructive
Discharge, could be described as constructing an environment that
is difficult or
impossible to perform the assigned job. If this resulting environment results
in a
resignation or through a
deliberate act of constructing a case to terminate an employee
violates a federal law we have
to answer for these acts.
In the case of religious
discrimination, it is difficult for an employee to prevail in a law
suit if that employee
resigns without giving the employer due notice of an unknown conflict.
The majority of people would
not believe that a deliberate attempt by the employer to construct
an environment that is so
intolerable, that an employee would resign without giving the employer
any notice of such intolerable
working conditions. A simple notice of a company policy to
management that causes undue
hardship or conflict that violates the individual’s religious beliefs
would suffice. The employee
must inform management prior to resignation. This reasonable
request or requirement
would allow the employer to make reasonable accommodations. If an
employer is tolerant of all
religious beliefs and is willing to accommodate specific needs of
individuals, it is still
impossible to read minds of every employee and know every special
religious belief. This given
fact puts more burdens on the plaintiff to prove deliberate acts
perpetuated by the employer to
cause hardship or conflicts with an individual’s right to practice
their religion as they
perceive it to be practiced. Not the employer’s belief on practicing religion.
CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE
UNDER TITLE VII AND THE ADEA. The Case
Law on Constructive
Discharge 1. The Reasonable Person Test. The majority approach
holds that an employee has been
constructively discharged if an employer's
discriminatory acts result in
working conditions so in- tolerable that a reasonable person
in the employee's
position would feel compelled to resign (Finnegan, 1986, pg 563).
There is a substantial amount
of case law that addresses the burden of proof on to
the plaintiff. The
predominant underlying question within the cases below is, was the employer
deliberate in its actions? Was
the action by the employer aimed to cause a conflict to a specific
individual? If we as an
employer make a decision to benefit the company and employees, was it
intended to alienate an
individual or certain individuals to cause a conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment