Religious Discrimination and Racial Harassment

Relevant facts 

Maalick faced a variety of difficulties at work. The first question arose when he discussed taking time off to attend a five-day spiritual preparation and confirmation procedure to become an Internationalist. Clive Jenkins, his manager, discussed the validity of his faith. Before making a decision, Maalick was asked to send data on his so-called faith to his manager for analysis. His offer for time off was approved, but his boss was reluctant to do so. Employees asked Maalick offensive questions and made assumptions about his religion. When he returned to work during his holiday, he encountered further problems. As he completed the required paperwork to formally change his name, he welcomed the open-door policy to discuss with Marta Ford, the HR Manager, and the concerns colleagues had about his religious views. Her reaction to not being worried about his colleagues was false. Maalick's office had been regularly vandalized with aggressive and inappropriate objects. When he asked his boss what he had done, it went unnoticed. The boss even made inappropriate comments about the situation and mocked his new identity. Another challenge Maalick faced was defamatory notes about his faith and a name change that was left around his work area and car. Employee(s) have left ethnicity materials around Maalick's workspace.

The most recent thing was being passed over to advance to the machine manager that he was eligible for due to his religion. Employees are shielded from workplace discrimination based on their ethnicity, color, faith, gender, national origin, or protected behavior. Concerning faith, this federal statute, therefore, allows reasonable tolerance of the employee's sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and traditions as stated unless the accommodation will impose an unreasonable burden on business operations. Religions that are well-known and alluded to, as well as those that are rare or recent, are protected by the statute. Employees should not be exposed to provocation because of their religious views or traditions, according to federal guidelines. Harassment is unwanted behavior based on skin tone, color, faith, sex, nationality, age, disability, or genetic material that is illegal if the aggressive behavior becomes a requirement of continued jobs, or the behavior is serious or unavoidable enough to build a work atmosphere that a fair individual would consider scary (Lau et al, 2017). Harassment can include designations, hostile jokes, physical attacks, slurs, or sexually abusing, or warnings, terrorizing, derision or joke, insults or put-downs, and hostile articles or images, and it can be carried out by a subordinate, a peer, or a superior. Racial slurs, negative or derogatory remarks regarding an individual's race or color and racially insensitive symbols are all prohibited by federal legislation. Although federal legislation refers to managers who have at least fifteen employers, Kansas anti-discrimination applies to employers who have six or more employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Kansas Human Rights Commission share a work-sharing understanding, which means that the offices collaborate to course discrimination cases, so the claimant can register one case then prove that it is necessary to cross-file the dispute with the new department. The applicant must file a complaint with the KHRC within six months of the date of separation. The applicant must file a complaint with the KHRC within a half-year of the day the split began, and if filing with the EEOC, the complaint must be filed within 300 days.

Religious accommodation 

After reading the details of the case, Maalick demanded an exception with his religious views in order to complete his conversion and was given a week off. If there are some concerns regarding the reason for the accommodation requirement, a restricted request can be launched. Jenkins wanted to challenge him inappropriately due to his differing religious beliefs (Combs, 2009). There was no evidence shown to support the argument that Maalick's housing offer was denied due to his religion. When Maalick demanded a week of vacation leave to finalize his transition to the Internationalist Church, the leave was granted against Jenkins' desire for more details. Jenkins must have turned down Maalick's request for leave. Employers are required to accommodate religious beliefs, traditions, and religious practices provided the convictions are firmly held, and the smart convenience does not pose an unnecessary burden on the boss.

Maalick was not forbidden from reading religious books, he was able to change his authorized name, and he was given time off from work by his boss for religious duties. It asserts that all administrators are required to reasonably accommodate a legislator's religious belief and research unless it would interfere with the business's operations in excess of negligible weight. It also refers to acclimating to the workplace in order to take into account representative acts of their faith, such as schedule shifts, leave for strict acknowledgment, dressing, and planning rehearsals. If an associate's personal views cause conflict during working hours, they must seek fair accommodations from their boss.

HR Director’s Action 

Maalik met with Marta Ford to complete the requisite paperwork after completing his faith conversion. He voiced the numerous concerns about his religious practices that he was getting from colleagues (Shantz et al, 2018). She told him that his new name would be interpreted and mirrored in the organization's documents and that she would deal with his colleagues. Maalik thought the jokes would fade overtime when he came across Mystical Practices from the Negro Experience and what seemed to be chanting titled "Petition for Black Folk." Irritated, he quickly presented this information to Ms. Ford, who told him that she had no idea of any abuse occurring inside the building. She asked if he knew who was committing the continuing offenses and told him that she would tackle the case. A briefing with all department heads was held to advise them on the latest situation. An email was sent to other associates highlighting the attitude of Trenton to segregation and aggression. Ms. Ford made an attempt to form in with Maalick on a daily basis to ensure that the abuse has ended. He asked about open managerial roles that he felt would aid to advance his profession, and she urged him to apply. He later lodged official discrimination and sexual harassment lawsuit with Ford. Ford followed business procedure and sent the complaint to Judith Dixon, the EEO vice president, who then spoke with Jenkins and Ford.

When Maalik first disclosed the racist behavior against him to his HR manager, he or she should have taken prompt steps to address the matter. An urgent response to the suspected threats Maalik was subjected to may have stopped the incident from escalating into a Title VII violation. Ms. Ford did not conduct any form of investigation and perceived his protest to be unconstitutional discrimination. Sufficient action should have been taken, or a potential settlement found, prior to the harassing behavior being too serious or inevitable to affect the states of business and allowed to continue despite the worker's complaint. Ms. Ford should enforce offensive and badgering policies across the establishment to ensure that this situation does not reoccur in the future. The policies should state something like, "covers strict provocation; explicitly clarifies what is prohibited; portrays strategies for drawing provocation out in the open, and includes an assurance that alleged victims will be covered from retribution." If an employee reports illegal harassment in the workplace, guidelines should be provided to assist workers incorrectly reporting these reported crimes, as well as the best forms to reprimand someone who commits these offenses. Enforcing written policies and making sure all workers and employers are conscious of them will keep the company from having to deal with legal issues.

Acts of Religious and Racial Harassment 

Any form of Religious Harassment in the workstation is illegal. Religious harassment is defined as "whether the person is "needed or forced to the desert, change, or accept a severe practice as a state of occupational or subjected to unwelcome declarations or lead that is religious and is so bad or unavoidable that the person being wired prudently sees the workplace as unfriendly or severe, and there is a justification for keeping the business indebted." The way Maalick's coworkers and supervisor handled him would be classified as Religious Harassment since, after learning about his religious views, they isolated him and generated a toxic work atmosphere Discrimination. Mr. Jenkins made offensive remarks about Maalick's faith, referring to it as "alleged" and sharing that he represented it as strange, and admitting that his faith engages in weird practices. When Maalick told Jenkins that his office had been vandalized, Jenkins responded by cackling and sharing that it should have been considered because of his strange religious views (Alshathry et al, 2017). At a holiday party, he also made jokes and comments about his spiritual beliefs. The afterword of his conversion spread, colleagues interrogated him about his weird religious beliefs, making abusive remarks and damaging property in his workplace by leaving notes and dolls that resemble "voodoo dolls, an incense container, and witch hats. They also proceeded to question him about enchantment, palm readings, the disappearance of MarShawn DeMur, and the black cats. Many of these things happened when he learned of his faith. Harassment aimed at Maalick is forbidden. Harassment directed at him includes hostile or defamatory imprints, racist remarks regarding an individual's ethnicity or coloring, and a hostile work atmosphere, both of which are illegal (Race/Color Discrimination). A toxic work climate is one that is filled with racial harassment, disapproval, and insult that is extreme or inevitable enough to transform the casualty's business and create an unequal workplace. Centered on the verbal coercion alone, the supervisor's comments when discussing Maalick's African descendants can be perceived as racial badgering and should be greeted with light amusement about his transformation to his weird religion. When his colleagues arranged an unjustified image of Africa embroidered with strange letterings, photos, and set a few sheets of what seem to be chants around his work station titled "Prayers for Black Folk," as well as a book titled "Mystical Practices of the Negro Experiences," all of this can be called racial scolding. For many months, all of the labeled acts were focused on Maalick's race and generated an unsafe atmosphere for him.

Clive Jenkin’s Behavior 

Treton Media, Inc. is an equal opportunities employer. The organizational culture forbids judgment against candidates or workers based on ethnicity, color, religion, sex/gender, nationality, veteran status, disabilities, family status, or age. Both relevant laws and regulations will be followed both in principle and in the letter by the organization. The equal employment opportunities and the anti-discrimination policy extends to all company services, staff, and working practices, including but not limited to recruiting, promotion, relocation, review, firing, layoff, preparation, and access to training, working conditions, and so on. Wages and salaries, job benefits, and policy implementation Managers and managers at all levels are responsible for providing fair work opportunities. Managers and administrators will be kept responsible for adhering to the framework, and their annual success should be measured in relation to this as well as other main organizational objectives. Mr. Jenkins' actions were a blatant violation of Treton's anti-discrimination program, which was in place for every employer up and down the sequence. His acts were both culturally and racially discriminatory, and they resulted in the unmistakable activity. Jenkins, for instance, declined an elevation to Maalik due to his derogatory opinions on his religious beliefs and recruited an outside candidate who happened to be a member of his same audience. Managers/administrators are kept liable by default under managerial harassment that results in unmistakable job behavior, such as a denial of promotion, downgrade, discharge, or effective release. Jenkins wanted to recruit Charles Bartlett because he was clearly dissatisfied with the religious choices of the Maaliks (Farnham, 2017). This may have been seen as bigotry based on his faith rather than ineligibility based on results and credentials. Jenkins made negative statements regarding Maalik's race and religious views on several occasions and deliberately dismissed his name change, preferring to address him Demur, by his former name, after being told that his new name would be humbly recognized in the building. Jenkins is expected to follow Treton's EEO and prejudice laws, but he gives the appearance that he is breaching them. Jenkins never brought Maalick's concerns to HR, allowing the offensive behavior to continue. Jenkins, as a boss, had a duty to ensure that all workers are safe in the workplace and are not subjected to harassment, but he did not defend Maalick. Jenkins offers the appearance of being in fear of disciplinary action. Since Maalick officially lodged a discrimination complaint with HR, they are now responsible for following through with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC is the federal body in charge of dealing with gender discrimination. If Jenkins and Trenton are determined to have violated the Title VII act, Maalick could be awarded compensatory damages. It is possible that after the first discussion, Maalik was to seek permission; Jenkins started a firestorm of abuse in the midst of the many for his poor outlook.

References 

Alshathry, S., Clarke, M., & Goodman, S. (2017). The role of employer brand equity in employee

attraction and retention: a unified framework.  International Journal of Organizational Analysis .

Combs, G. (2009). Religious Discrimination and Racial Harassment: What Ever Happened to

MarShawn DeMur?--Student Workbook.  Management Department Faculty Publications , 52

Farnham, D. (2017).  The changing faces of employment relations: Global, comparative and 

theoretical perspectives . Palgrave, Macmillan Eduction.

Lau, P. Y. Y., Tong, J. L. T., Lien, B. Y. H., Hsu, Y. C., & Chong, C. L. (2017). Ethical work

climate, employee commitment and proactive customer service performance: Test of the mediating effects of organizational politics.  Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ,  35 , 20-26.

Shantz, A., Wang, J., & Malik, A. (2018). Disability status, individual variable pay, and pay

satisfaction: Does relational and institutional trust make a difference?  Human Resource Management ,  57 (1), 365-380.