Reflection of Simpson’s Case of Equality

Reflection of Simpson’s Case of Equality

 This reflection paper will discuss Simpson Sear’s case, which took place in Canada’s Supreme Court. The discussion will begin with the underlying facts regarding the case from how it started to how it ended. This paper will also discuss in detail the various legal questions that the court tackled while assessing the case. Moreover, there will be mentioning of the forms of laws which were utilized to examine the facts within the case as this will be completed by an in-depth explanation of the reasons behind the use of such laws. The paper will conclude with a discussion of the court’s end decision by providing an understanding of the term “equality” and identifying the weakness, blind spots, as well as strengths that were omitted while deciding the case. As the paper ends, the article will determine if the society exercises equality, as well as the way court decision,  may influence future cases regarding equality.

Theresa O’Malley was a female employee at Simpson Sears Limited and a Seventh-day Adventist. She worked at the company as a clerk for seven years before becoming a 7^th day Adventist in 1978. SDA is a religion comprising of strict measures that members should strictly adhere to, such as observing the Sabbath days, which is from Friday to Saturday.  Since O’Malley’s job was full time and required employees to avail themselves on Fridays and Saturdays, the company terminated the employee from her job. Simpsons-sears Company argued in court that its regulations require that all employees should avail themselves at work both on Friday and Saturdays. The company also mentioned that it did not intend in any way to discriminate against the employees, as it was a neutral requirement that was imposed on all employees. The main concern before the Supreme Court was whether regulations that require all employees to work both on Friday and Saturday discriminate a form of region in one way or another. According to the Supreme Court, the kind of discrimination that took place in the case was not necessary to be intentional or non-intentional, which is why it ordered Simpson Sear to pay O’Malley for the capital she lost due to the company’s adverse discrimination.

The entire case featured discrimination as well as an assessment of evidence that revealed an infringement of human rights. The primary legal question which was availed during the trial was: “did the company of Simpson Sear subject Theresa O’Malley to a form of discrimination within the Human Right code of Ontario in Canada? The court answered the legal question by stating that Simpson Sear discriminated O’Malley because under the law, the act of discrimination, whether intentional or not, is against the Laws that protect human rights and should not occur under any circumstance.

The company of Simpson Sear broke the law, which was part of the Human Rights Code in Ontario. Specifically, the Ontario law states that all employees have the “right to be free of discrimination in employment.” The law also states that employers should refrain from discriminating against their employees due to their ethnic origin, religion, race, or nationality. It was from the mentioned law that the Supreme Court convicted Simpson Sears against its employee’s religion. While this form of discrimination was not direct, it was still viable under the law. The discrimination law asserts that any form of discrimination, whether adverse or not, is a crime, since many people may use adverse forms of discrimination to discriminate against others and get away with it indirectly. O’Malley’s case has assisted many individuals in finding justice from adverse forms of discrimination.

Upon assessing this case, viewers can see that there is a need to fight for equality in society since there are several other cases where employers break the discrimination laws by subjecting employees to adverse treatments. The court’s decision indicates that there is a need for organizations, groups, and individuals to fight the act of discrimination against immigrants, women, minorities, and people from different religious backgrounds. For example, Simpson’s case involved a Caucasian male who demanded to exercise his religious beliefs on Saturdays and Fridays. However, O’Malley’s employer was not lenient enough to provide her the freedom to exercise her religion. One of the primary lessons from the case was that the right of equality majorly applies to people from the middle and upper-class levels of society.

The idea of treating every individual equally before the law, regardless of the prevailing circumstances, is true. Indeed, everyone deserves equality under the law since it creates peace and harmony, as everyone will be able to understand the plight of one another. Societies where people are unable to receive equal treatment usually result in cases of rebellion, leading to violent protests against the government or any relevant authority. The act of possessing fair and equal rights in a society where every individual enjoys fair rights regardless of their societal classes or any element that defines their backgrounds is a reality that everyone should believe and adhere to. However, a significant bit of society still exercises discriminative actions towards particular groups, whether directly or indirectly. Individuals from the upper class, as well as the government, are still exercising discrimination of different groups, especially on a racial basis. For example, there are cases where if a man illegally possesses weapons while on streets, then the law requires that he should serve a jail term of one year, but since the victim is of color, he receives a penalty more than the stated one in the law due to issues surrounding discrimination against people. Similarly, a Caucasian man, for instance, can commit a crime of murder while drunk driving, but fortunately, he gets away with it because of his ethnic background.

Moreover, the fact that most minorities in the society are unable to afford quality lawyers is also a form of discrimination by the government because the authority is unable to provide them with what the middle and high-class people in the society can afford. The minorities usually spend more time in jail than the privilege ones when individuals from such groups have committed similar crimes. Not until the government changes its policies regarding equality, the question of equality before the law will remain a significant challenge.

As can be seen, the term “equality” is a common element in the society, although little has been done to identify controversies which accrue while determining cases such as that of Simpson Sear. The society lacks absolute equality since only a handful of people can receive equality even before the laws, as others are forced to fight for equality rights depending on the prevailing circumstances. Generally, it is essential to develop transformations that will see the art of equality in action. However, society still has a long way to go when it comes to attaining absolute equality under the law.