Religious Discrimination in Workplaces

Religious Discrimination in Workplaces

Ethical issues are increasing in the workplace. The problem has become as contentious and litigious one for many businesses to deal with them. These issues arise from cases of religious discrimination in job finding. Also, in workplaces, people relate differently based on their religious beliefs and practices. According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the number of religious discrimination has increased by more than 50% in the past 15 years (“The Civil Rights Act,” 1965). It is on these grounds that Berkley sought to focus on educating the organization leaders and supervisors as well as employees on religious discrimination issues through the diversity training manual.

Diversity Manual Summary

The civil rights act of 1964 became the nation’s premier of the civil rights legislation. In this Act, discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was outlawed. Though the Act gave propagated for equality in access to public places and employment as well as enforcing desegregation of schools and the right to vote, it failed in ending discrimination. Some of the supreme court rulings such as the Plessy Ferguson(1895) that found the racial segregation as separate but equal as constitutional legalized discrimination into the 20^th century (“The  Civil Rights Act, “1965). There was a series of results such as the murder of civil rights worker Medgar Evers and William L. Moore, the Mach on Washington and bombing of Birmingham’s 16^th Street Baptist Church that resulted to the death of four young girls led to the federal government reacting in enforcing some of the civil rights. President John F Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1963 (“The Civil Rights Act, “1965). The passing of these bills was filed with challenges resulting even to the assassination of Kennedy.However, in 1964, Martin Luther King, jr Dorothy Height Roy Wilkins, and John Lewis, together with president Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill into law, declaring all types of discrimination unlawful. The EEOC provides guidelines and compliances on religious discrimination.They deal with the issue of a coverage issue by defining religion where the Title VII prohibits employers or unions from employment in favor of one religion or treating an employee differently (“Compliance Manual,” 2008 ). In this Act, worship includes all aspects of religious observance and practices, as well as belief. It concerns these acts insights that as an Hr. Manager of the Berkley form I wish to bring into attention the various religion that the company can comfortably accommodate and those that it cannot happen due to multiple reasons.

Catholicism believes that the company can comfortably accommodate a change is an employee’s need to attend church services on Good Friday. The law recognizes the day as an official day for the catholic celebration and observances of the day. Also, the company would respect any belief on an individual, such as the need for time to practice one faith by praying.However, giving each their time to pray would jeopardize the operations of the company. Therefore, it is upon the individuals to find time on their own during lunch break to practice their religion at designated places. Also, the company requires a particular code of dressing. Thus, individuals should adhere to concerning their faith.

Hinduism religion practices such as putting a mark on the face are okay with the company as well as allowing them to participate in the seasonal Hindu festivals.However, the company restricts carrying out of pujas in the workplace and dressing in religious attire in the workplace.

The company can easily observe the dietary regulations to the Orthodox Judaism observers as well as the observance of their religion important calendar festivals. However, the company finds it hard to keep the Sabbath day requirement for every Judaist. Therefore, every employee is required to report to work on the Sabbath day if needed. On the issue of garment wearing, it is the right of the company to agree on what should be worn as it is the rule of the company to dress according to the work ethics.

The reason for not granting some of the religious privileges such as observance of the Sabbath day is because a company requires consistent labor and production. And since it cannot choose on which religion to grant the right to observe their holy day, it is right to deny all and treat each equally. Different religions keep Sabbath days on different days, thus granting one special privilege means violating the Act by discriminating against the others.

Similarly, the dressing code is meant to bring uniformity in the company as well as keeping the system of dressing of work. Dressing on regards to religion may bring division in the company, and thus the company only reserves the right for the workers to observe or wear some ornaments related to their faith. However, each worker should note that no religion is superior to the other. And so the company reserves no unique places for paying and encourages the use of a popular site to promote the association and to understand each other’s religion.

Affirmative Action

In regards to implementing the Title VII act, the federal government went ahead to introduce affirmative action. Even with the laws prohibiting unlawful discrimination of any kind, the minority group and the women remained excluded in the field, especially in education and employment (CNN, 2019). Therefore Affirmative action meant to bring policies to give these parties more attention by providing directions on various requirements and quotas to be met in educational systems and employment in line with the minority group.

However, various people feel that executing affirmative action tends to introduce back discrimination. As the Act describes, there should be no discrimination in any kind to any group in all aspects of the social-political and economic realms. There introducing directive policies which direct that a significant percentage of women and minority groups should encompass the organization top levels or top stops in employment is sought of favoring the women over the others, which is unlawful according to the title VII.

In the Regents of the University of California V.  Bakke (1978) where Bakke sued the University of California in a state court for violation of Title VI of the civil rights act 1964 and the fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The school had a policy in admission where it reserved 16 seats out of 100 in its minority’s entries, including “Blacks,” “Chicanos,” “Asians,” and “American Indians.” (“The Supreme Court,” nd). Bakke, a white applicant’s decision to sue the school, is because he was denied admission twice in his application even though his MCAT scores, GPA, and benchmark scores were significantly higher than those of the minority applicants recently admitted.

The supreme court, in its ruling, written by Justice Lewis Franklin Powell, ruled the racial quotas as unconstitutional. But also the court saw that the school was also right in affirmative action by trying to diversify the education of the minority groups (“The Supreme Court,” nd).In its explanation of the ruling, the court argued that a state or any other organization can allocate few posts to specific people on terms of race or place of origin provided the allocation is meant to provide equal opportunities to the marginalized groups or the people from a particular area who are mainly left out of relevant post due to the disadvantageous aspects of places of origin. The court argued that the actions of the school meant to create equal opportunities for the minorities by removing the admission barriers to these groups by setting out specific quota requirements.

The conclusion of the court was based on the fact that some minority group and gender do not have equal opportunities like the others. For instance, females get fewer considerations when it comes to the top positions of an institution. Also, in schools, most of the school administration favor a specific race, mainly based on the place of origin where other people from different races have less equal opportunities. Therefore the court thought and felt that there was a need for providing equal opportunities without discriminating with regards to gender place of origin or any other aspect (“The Supreme Court”). Similarly, the court ruled that if any organization or state necessitates such activities, they are constitutionally allowed in affirmative action. Which endeavors to create equal opportunities for all genders and races.

BY favoring a particular group over the other the affirmative action brought with it many positive results and created problems in society and employment opportunities legislating the affirmative action-equal opportunities to the minority groups, which are more often not regarded in any position, became recognized. Affirmative action mainly seems to have benefited women significantly in the employment sector. Initially, few women were considered in the top spot or even in political positions; however, by creating quota policies, women’s involvement has increased. Nevertheless, the legislation has created problems with the male counterparts who feel now neglected. People qualified for the same positions with higher qualifications than the females feel discriminated against by the Act of automatically giving some special treatment to the women. The group thinks that special treatment is a form of discrimination and has led to the empowerment of women more than men. It brings a kind of insecurity to these men, which is a threat to the association in the workplaces, enhancing gender-based violence.

As noted, it is undeniably that affirmative action has its unconstitutionality and legal aspects in equal measures. Depending on the interpretation of an individual, the action night becomes unlawful or constitutional. Therefore it is always good to act according to the interests of all groups since empowering one group only creates a form of discrimination to the other group. When one group feels discriminated, they result in civil rights movements to advocate for their rights leading to social marches and demonstrations affecting the activities of the nation. The more a group is empowered, the more the other become disadvantaged. It is, however, important to act on equal measures by providing a common ground for the involved parties. Instead of giving quotas for specific groups, the qualification requirements should create equal opportunities for all without having to favor or create a particular group in a unique way.