Employment Contract Compliant under Title VII Order Instructions: discussing the following hypothetical: John is one of the best parcel delivery employees where you are the direct employer of John.
Under his employment contract, it is John’s duty to deliver packages on the east side of town on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. John, who has never been a religious person suddenly becomes devoutly religious and joins a highly respected religious group.
John notifies you suddenly that it is against his religion to deliver packages on the east side of town on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and therefore would be unable to do so. John then proceeds to notify you that his religious objection is protected under Title VII, The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
You also realize that if John refuses to discharge is his employment duties on the grounds that it violates his religious beliefs that it would cause an undue hardship for the company and risk losing some very valuable accounts.
As the company owner, what actions would you take in order to be sure that you are compliant under Title VII, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet ensure that packages are delivered on the side of town on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays? Discuss.
Be sure that you present a thorough analysis discussing the rights of the employee and employer under Title VII, The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Whatever your position on the hypothetical; be sure that you support your thoughts and ideas with adequate research as evidenced by in-text citation in accordance with APA standards.
Employment Contract Compliant under Title VII Sample Answer
Compliant under Title VII
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a worker who has religious restrictions which prevent that worker from carrying out particular tasks at the workplace can request religious accommodation from her/his employer. Even so, the request for religious accommodation has to be reasonable (Houseman, 2011). An undue hardship allows employers to avoid providing their employees with religious accommodations. In this paper, the actions that I would take as the employer so as to ensure that the firm remains compliant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is described exhaustively.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 basically makes illegal employment discrimination on grounds of national origin, gender, religion, color or race. It is a federal law that applies to all employers who have a workforce of at least fifteen workers and includes local, state as well as federal governments. This law also applies to public and private universities and colleges, employers, labor organizations, and even employment agencies (Froiland, 2013). It is worth mentioning that this law disallows discrimination in any respect of employment, which includes the following: testing; job advertisements; firing and hiring; fringe benefits; transfer, layoff, recall or promotion; training and apprenticeship programs; compensation, classification or assignment of employees; use of company facilities; as well as pay, disability leave and retirement plans. In essence, Title VII does not just disallow deliberate discrimination, it also prohibits unbiased job policies which disproportionately affect individuals of a particular color, ethnicity or race, and which do not relate to the job as well as the business needs (Bennet-Alexander & Hartman, 2012). It is important that an employer adopts best practices in order to minimize the chances of discrimination.
Under Title VII, every aspect of religious observance, belief, and practice is protected. Title VII defines religion in a very broad manner. As per this law, religion comprises not just organized and traditional religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, but also religious beliefs which are uncommon, new, not subscribed to by many people, not part of a formal faction or church, or which appear unreasonable or illogical to other people. The practice and belief of an employee could be considered religious according to this law even if that worker is affiliated with a religious grouping which does not really recognize or espouse that employee’s practice or belief (Bennet-Alexander & Hartman, 2012).
Religious beliefs, as per the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, includes theistic beliefs – that is, beliefs which include believing in God – in addition to non-theistic ethical or moral convictions regarding wrong and right which are genuinely held with the strength of established religious viewpoints (United States Department of Labour, 2016). Title VII protects job applicants or staff members from discrimination based on religion if the applicant/employee is an atheist and/or does not subscribe to a certain religious viewpoint. It is notable that religious discrimination could also entail treating a person in a different way for the reason that this individual is associated with or married to a person of a certain religion or due to that person’s connection with a particular religious group or organization (Houseman, 2011). A worker cannot be forced by his or her employer as a condition of employment not to take part or to take part in a religious activity (United States Department of Labour, 2016).
Upon notification of a request, Title VII demands organizations to reasonably accommodate their staff members whose genuinely held beliefs, observances or practices are actually in conflict with work requirements unless this religious accommodation would bring about an undue hardship (United States Department of Labour, 2016). In particular, Section 701(j) of Title VII disallows employers to fail to reasonably accommodate a worker or a prospective worker’s religious practices, except if the employer clearly shows that the religious accommodation would bring about undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business. Section 1605.2 of Title VII is mainly directed to obligations of labor organizations or employers – entities which are covered by Title VII (United States Department of Labour, 2016).
Religious accommodation is understood as a change to the working environment which would enable a job applicant or a staff member to practice his/her religion. Froiland (2013) pointed out that the need for accommodation arises where a person’s religious practices, observances, or beliefs conflict with an application process, a particular job, or requirement of the job post. Requests for religious accommodation usually pertain to religious expression in the place of work, work schedules, or grooming and dress. If the religious accommodation will not pose an undue hardship, then the employer will have to grant the religious accommodation (United States Department of Labour, 2016). This means that the employer cannot grant religious accommodation if it actually posses undue hardship; hence John cannot be granted religious accommodation.
Terminate the employee’s contract – simply fire John
Title VII protects an employee against employment discrimination because of the employee’s religion. Bennet-Alexander and Hartman (2012) reported that if an employee cannot work on a particular day due to his or her religious values, then the employer under Title VII has to make an effort – although the employer need not go to great expense – to accommodate the religious need of the employee instead of simply dismiss him/her. However, if the employer will have to go to great expense in order to accommodate the employee’s religious need as in the case of John, the employee can instead just fire that employee. As per his contract with the company, John is required to deliver packages on Fridays, Wednesdays, and Mondays on the east side of town. Due to his religious beliefs, however, he declines to carry out his parcel delivery task as this would infringe his religious beliefs. However, John’s failure to carry out his employment duties on Fridays, Wednesdays, and Mondays would cause an undue hardship for the business organization, and the business actually risks losing a number of extremely vital accounts. Thus the employer can fire John and hire another employee who would be able to deliver parcels on Fridays, Wednesdays, and Mondays on the east side of town.
In essence, undue hardship allows employers to avoid religious accommodations. A religious accommodation might bring about undue hardship if that religious accommodation compromises safety in the place of work, it is costly, it reduces efficiency in the place of work, violates other employees’ rights, or necessitates other workers in the company to do more than their share of possibly burdensome or hazardous work (United States Department of Labour, 2016). In addition, Bennet-Alexander and Hartman (2012) pointed out that undue hardship could be demonstrated if the religious accommodation request is in violation of job rights or a collective bargaining agreement terms created through a seniority system. It is worth mentioning that undue cost basing upon cost requires that the business organization actually show more than a de minimis – that is, negligible impact on the business of the employer – cost to the employer (United States Department of Labour, 2016).
The hardship on the business organization has to be real and should not be just speculative. Therefore, the most appropriate solution in this situation is for the employer to terminate the contract of John and hire another employee who can deliver packages on Fridays, Wednesdays, and Mondays on the east side of town. On the whole, Title VII does not allow any employer to discriminate against its staff member because of the employee’s religion unless that employer cannot reasonably accommodate the religious exercises of that particular worker without undue hardship to the employer’s business. An employer is not required under Title VII to provide religious accommodation to a staff member if this religious accommodation would impose more than the de minimis cost on the company (United States Department of Labour, 2016). Since providing religious accommodation to John would result in undue cost on the company, he would not be provided with this religious accommodation. Instead, he would be terminated.
John can file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the possible religious accommodations which would be proposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission include the following: (i) transfer John to a different position; (ii) the company to create a group of substitute parcel truck drivers; and (iii) the company to excuse John from work on Fridays, Wednesdays, and Mondays and hire hourly contract parcel drivers in the place of John (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2016). Even so, the first proposed religious accommodation is declined since it is assumed that the company reasonably believes that John would reject such a position. Moreover, the second and third possible religious accommodations are rejected as they would lead to an undue hardship on the business of the company. The company can establish an undue hardship by presenting actual dollar amounts as well as exact examples of the significant, negative impact of the proposed accommodation (the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2016).
The first proposal is unreasonable given that it is assumed in this hypothetical situation that it is very likely that John would have refused to accept transfer to another job position at the company, for instance, the job position as a general equipment operator: the employer is not required to provide John a religious accommodation which, basing on John’s action, the employer reasonably believes that John would refuse this position. The second proposal is unreasonable primarily because if the employer excuses John from Fridays, Wednesdays, and Mondays work, then the employer would not have had the tasks done at all, have had to make other workers at the company carry out John’s work, or hire independent contractors. For this reason, excusing John from work on Fridays, Wednesdays and Mondays would, without doubt, impose more than a de minimis cost on the employer, which would lead to an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business (the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2016). It is notable that providing religious accommodation to John in this situation would bring about undue hardship to the employer since the religious accommodation would necessitate other workers in the company to do more than their share of possibly burdensome work, which entails delivering parcels on Fridays, Wednesdays, and Mondays on the east side of town.
The third proposal is also unreasonable. This is mainly because if the employer created a pool of substitute delivery truck drivers that can effectively fill-in for John on Fridays, Wednesdays, and Mondays as needed, then the employer would have had to incur costs of providing training to the substitute drivers to drive parcel trucks as well as the expenditure of adding those new truck drivers to its liability insurance policies. Consequently, this third proposal would have imposed on the employer more than a de minimis cost and undue hardship.
In essence, after a worker has notified his or her employer of his/her need for religious accommodation at the workplace in the company, the employer under Title VII has the obligation of reasonably accommodating the religious practices of that particular employee. The employer’s refusal to accommodate the employee’s religious practices is only justified if that employer proves that an undue hardship would actually be brought about by every possible alternative means of religious accommodation (United States Department of Labour, 2016). In this case, which involves John the parcel truck driver, it has been demonstrated by the employer – who is me in this case – that an undue hardship would truly stem from every possible alternative method of religious accommodation. As such, the best solution is to terminate him and employ another worker to perform John’s employment duties.
Employment Contract Compliant under Title VII Conclusion
In sum, the employer is not required under Title VII to accommodate John’s requests, which include requests for the employee to be excused from work on some days to exercise his/her religious practices, observances or beliefs, which would impose more than de minimis costs on the conduct of the employer’s organization. Since undue hardship would actually stem from every possible alternative method of religious accommodation in this situation, firing John and replacing him with a worker who can properly perform his employment duties is the most suitable solution. Even though this case involving John sheds light on the fact that there are times when it might be appropriate for an employer to reject a worker’s proposed request for religious accommodation, it is important that an employer takes care when assessing any such accommodation requests in order to establish if there is really a reasonable accommodation. Title VII places a significant burden on the employer to reasonable accommodation basing upon the employee’s religion.
Employment Contract Compliant under Title VII References
Bennet-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2012). Employment law for business (6th ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Froiland, D. J. B. (2013). A “de minimus” cost can be enough to defeat a religious accommodation claim. Cleveland, OH: Prentice Hall.
Houseman, S. N. (2011). Flexible staffing arrangements: Anti-discrimination laws. The United States Department of Labour.
United States Department of Labour. (2016). Religious discrimination and accommodation in the federal workplace. Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/2011-religious-discrimination-and-accommodation.htm
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
