The modern workplace is full of a diverse workplace with employees from different backgrounds and works of life. The difference in backgrounds could result in some employers showing discrimination based on an individual’s background. Discrimination in the workplace can take place based on race, religion, and sex. The legislature of the United States outlines various laws and regulations which protect employees from discrimination against their employers. This paper analyzes the scenario of Janice and Dream Massage and determines whether Janice qualifies to be an independent contractor or employee, whether Dream Massage has violated employment discrimination, and examines various ethical considerations with the maintenance of a rigid dress policy.
Does Janice qualify as an employee or an independent contractor?
The scenario presented qualifies Janice as an employee. An employee is a person that is working for wages or salary and is in a position below the level of executive. Janice qualifies to be labeled as an employee because she is required to work under a schedule. Dream Massage provides Janice with several clients and all her massage exercises, products. Dream Massage has a complete control over the nature of work performed by Janice.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
An independent contractor differs from an employee because an independent contractor works for himself or herself without tax withholdings or any benefits. Most independent contractors usually set out their own controls and schedule to adjust their hours of work. An independent contractor should perform services which cannot be controlled by the employer. On the other hand, an employee has the employer with a legal right to control the details of how the services have been performed (Dennis ‐ Escoffier, 2016). For the case given, Janice is considered as an employee her actions are fully under the control of Dream Massage. Additionally, Janice works under the company’s work schedule and cannot control her time.
Violation of employment discrimination laws
Dream Massage violated employment discrimination laws when they informed Janice that she should not wear hijab because it violated the company’s dress code. According to Title VII of the Federal law government employment, any employer should not discriminate their employees based on religion (Koppelman, 2014). The beliefs of some religions require that its followers wear certain types of clothing and refrain from other types. The wearing of the hijab is thus an expression of Janice’s religious beliefs. The fact that she is not allowed to wear the hijab in the workplace is thus discriminatory and a violation of employment discrimination laws.
The hijab is a distinctive headscarf worn by many Muslim women and it serves as a way to express their faith. However, there are other circumstances where an employer could require a different set of clothing depending on the nature of the job. For instance, jobs that require employees to work in a dangerous environment that have moving parts would require a particular dress code. The hijab could have come out as a potential safety issue for such a case. However, the case given does not provide a reasonable claim about why Janice should remove the hijab.
The law requires that employers should make reasonable accommodation as far as religious clothing is concerned. The accommodation may not be made unless it would cause an undue hardship for the employer. The meaning of the term “undue hardship” does not have a specific definition and can be applied to different circumstances. A court is thus the final decision and it decides on a case-by-case basis by looking at all the factors concerned. If Janice decides to press charges for being discrimination, the court is likely to rule in her favor.
Ethical consideration behind the company’s rigid dress policy
Maintaining a rigid company dress policy like that seen in the case study does not enhance balance or fairness within an organization. The modern workplace is full of employees from different backgrounds and having a rigid dress policy would show bias to a certain group. Ethical requirements are that people should be treated with fairness, equality, and without any form of bias. In order to ensure that Dream Massage shows fairness and equality to people of different backgrounds and religions, the company should provide special adjustments for the given case. The company should show fairness by allowing Janice to wear the hijab even when it violates the company’s dress code.
Ethical consideration is a set of principles and values which address the question of what is bad or good in human affairs. Ethics try to find the reasons for acting in a certain way or refraining from acting in a different way. Ethical considerations can be applied to approve or disapprove a certain conductor or behavior (Koppelman, 2014). Janice’s reason for wearing the hijab could be that she is following her religious beliefs. The only reason that Dream Massage prevents her from wearing the hijab is that it violates the company’s dress code. Denying Janice from expressing her religious beliefs just to follow the rigid dress code mistreats Janice and is ethically wrong. The company should be able to accommodate its diverse employees without denying them a chance to perform their religious beliefs.
In conclusion, there is a great need for employers to classify their employees and workers accurately. Even though Janice has been engaged as an independent contractor, she works as an employee from Dream Massage. Dream Massage has a complete control of her schedule and her work. Refusing her to wear her hijab could thus be a violation of employment discrimination laws. The action is ethically wrong because it shows bias, unfairness, inequality, and mistreats Janice by refusing her to express her religious beliefs.
References
Dennis ‐ Escoffier, S. (2016). Employee or independent contractor. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance , 27 (3), 101-104.
Ferrell, O. C. (2016). A framework for understanding organizational ethics. In Business ethics: New challenges for business schools and corporate leaders (pp. 15-29). Routledge.
Koppelman, A. (2014). Gay Rights, Religious Accommodations, and the Purposes of Antidiscrimination Law. S. Cal. L. Rev. , 88 , 619.
