Discussion 1 Wk 5 thomas davis, philosophy homework help
Reply to this post in your own words. Must be at least 200 or more words.
In the United States companies are free to do many things such as have exclusive physical requirement for their business’s, or have a certain skill set along with employment at will to name a few. All of these aspects are consistent with a free market although you are not free to do whatever you want. There are also things businesses are not permitted to do and one of those things is violating any federal amendment and most definitely not anything in the bill of rights. The bill of rights encompasses everything this country stands for and to allow a business to disregard these rights is not only a disservice to the government but more importantly an atrocity committed against the people of this great nation.
Title VII requires disclosure by the applicant to the prospective employer on religious accommodations that would be required if employment is to be granted. If an employer is found to have not hired a prospective employee due to religious affiliation or accommodations that would be required then this business would be guilty of discrimination. Collins & Sokolowski, J. (2015). The supreme court however over turned the 10th district courts ruling in favor of Abercrombie and Fitch. “The Supreme Court stated that the job applicant only need to prove an employer did not hire someone due to the need to provide a religious accommodation not that the business new of the need for a religious accommodation.” Collins & Sokolowski, J. (2015).
The separation of church and state is a hard thing to accomplish, however it is the governments duty to protect freedom of religion under the bill of rights and Title VII of the civil rights act. Even though we have a free market economy it does not mean a business or government entity has the right to discriminate based upon religion, race or gender. Abercrombie & Fitch had enough information to conclude that Samantha was wearing the scarf for religious purposes and more importantly it was brought to a manager and dismissed because it was against their “look policy” and was a inconvenience for the business. Despite knowing this the manager elected not to hire Samantha which is where the religious discrimination comes into play. This decision was based solely on the headscarf not her physical appearance or a lack of ability to perform the job. The manager would not accommodate the head scarf which is religious discrimination at that point. Also they did not even make the attempt to ascertain if it was due to religious reasons even though they suspected it was. If you suspect something you investigate it not assume the details but should get documentation stating the facts. If not you leave your business open to court battles like this one. (The interviewer then sought guidance from an Abercrombie district manager and told him that she believed Elauf wore the headscarf because of her faith. The district manager concluded that the headscarf violated Abercrombie’s “Look Policy” and directed that Elauf not be hired. This is the nail in the coffin for the company they knew and they did nothing to accommodate her. The effect from the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case should be positive in the long run despite being out of favor with many anti-Muslim American’s because of terror attacks carried out by extremists who claim the Muslim faith. We are a country that accepts all kinds of people regardless of who they are and where they come from. The ruling of the supreme court holds true to those values and does not allow businesses to erode our nation’s principles and encourages cooperate social responsibility by saying that you didn’t know is not an acceptable answer especially if you suspected it.
Collins, C., & Sokolowski, J. (2015, June 12).Supreme Court sides with EEOC in Abercrombie & Fitch hijab case[Blog post].
Wall Street Journal. (2015, June 3).Supreme Court rules against Abercrombie & Fitch in head scarf case[Video file]
Religion in the workplace: Bias unveiled. (2015, June 3).The Economist.
