The Applicable Federal Statute

In this case, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies. This federal statute asserts that an employer has no right to limit, segregate, or classify employees in a way that would deprive them of the employment opportunities or status due to their religion ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). Notably, Jason did not break the rules that the firm had instituted since he approached fellow employees during lunch break. Thus, he did not interfere with the productivity of the company. However, when the supervisor commanded Jason to stop practicing his religious duties, an act of discrimination arose under Title VII. 

The Legal Issues 

Different legal issues exist in the presented case. One of them is the right to practice religion. The federal and state constitutions insist that employees have equal protection and freedom of religion at the workplace ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). Since an employer is a governmental entity, they should avoid imposing workplace practices and policies that tend to establish or interfere with an employee’s religious practices. Under Title VII, there are two legal issues, namely the duty to reasonable accommodation of employee’s religious activities and employer undue hardship. The duty to accommodate refers to the employer’s ability and strategy to minimize conflict between the workplace policies and employee’s religious beliefs and practices ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). In the current case, this issue arises since the no-soliciting policy violates Jason’s acts of religious practices. Another legal issue is the undue hardship refers to the challenges on the part of the employer when accommodating the employee’s religious practices. 

The Relationship between the Case and the Law 

In the presented, some facts are related to the law and its theories. For example, the issue of religion exists. Title VII defines religion as aspects of religious observance, practices, and beliefs ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). An employer has no right to limit an employee’s status and privileges based on their religion unless there is a proof of undue hardship. In the current case, the employer may have liability since Title VII insists that the duty to accommodate is only applicable to religious practices and not beliefs ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). The supervisor did not warn Jason against having his religious beliefs but for interfering with the coordination and cooperation of the employees. However, there is no proof of undue hardship. An employer has to demonstrate the willingness to accommodate the employee’s religious practices ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). Failure to show a good-faith attempt on the part of the employer attracts liability under Title VII. In the current case, the supervisor did not consider Jason’s religious practices, and instead, she dismissed them. Reasonable accommodation of employee’s religious conflict entails factors such as the cost of intervention and employer’s checking whether the other employers attempted to assist in the accommodation ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). Notably, the supervisor did not consider any of these factors. Hence, Jason has protection under Title VII. For an employer to be free of liability, they have to show that there was evidence of undue hardship. Among the factors that would be analyzed in a court include the burden and cost of accommodation and other employees’ willingness to assist ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). However, these factors were not considered in the case. Hence, the supervisor faces liability under Title VII. 

Comparison with a Case 

In the case of Williams v. Southern Union Gas Company , the court found that accommodation could not be established without causing undue hardship. The case involved a religious conflict between an employee whose beliefs forbidden him from working on Saturdays ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). In trying to resolve the issue, the employer attempted to introduce a new working schedule, but this strategy would have caused undue hardship. Hence, the employer terminated the employee, and the court upheld this decision ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). Unlike in the current case, the employer attempted to show good faith, and when the issue could not be resolved, the employee lost his job. Supervisor Jan did not exhibit any attempt to address this issue. If the employee sues for religious discrimination, then the employer will be liable. 

References 

Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L.P. (2019).  Employment law for business (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.