Discrimination in Workplaces
If I were a judge in the judge in the Dress Code Flips Burger Joint case, my ruling would be based on legal stipulations and not personal views or beliefs. First, the question of discrimination, in this case, was an issue revolving around the dressing code. The lady’s mode of dressing and her combination with work-attire (headscarf) requirements led to the arguments witnessed in the case. The lady had won a scarf alongside the uniform, which was viewed as insignificant towards religious views. Furthermore, the accommodation case was revolving around Mr. Johnson to view Ms. Djarra’s issue and requests as an exception and grand her right to exercise her religious belief until its completion and resume the normal dressing code after the festive (Borstorff, 2011). However, the defendant was unwilling to grand the plentiful request; instead, he requested her to take a one-month leave and observe the religious festive away from the company. This created an un-conducive environment for both parties resulting in the issues brought in court.
According to the plentiful in the first case of the dress code, it was during her religious festive, and therefore, she felt the need to wear a headscarf in commemoration of the special day. According to the evidence presented, the boss to the plentiful warned her against breaking the workplace protocols. However, she did not heed to the warning but showed up with the same headscarf at her workplace. Furthermore, the defendant claims that despite warning her several, he suggested that the plentiful signs for leave so that she observes the religious festive and resume working after it was over (Gregory, 2011). Besides, the complainant restated his claim that he warned the employees several over wearing her scarf during working hours since it was against the employee dress code requirements of the company. These warnings, according to the defendant, were aimed at defending and protecting other employees from doing the same thing or feeling unflavored since they had dressed according to the stipulations of the workplace requirements.
Analytically, discrimination issues in the first case arose due to the feeling that religious attire was not supposed to be won alongside official wear or a uniform for that matter. Therefore, there was a feeling that the religion in question (Muslim) was not being taken seriously. On the other hand, the issue of accommodation arose because the complainant’s safety was threatened. She felt that it was the responsibility of the landlord to ensure that she was safe and peaceful; therefore, since the landlord could not meet her desires, the dispute arose. The judge ruled intending to ensure that there was no issue of discrimination between the two parties. The judge said that it was unethical to fire employees due to their religious attires. He states that the religious attire (headscarf in this case) was ideal for showing respect to Ms. Djarra’s religion. Furthermore, the judge based on the idea that there are always alternatives for each case, and Mr. Johnson has an opportunity to employ other options to mitigate the conflicting issue.
If I were a judge, I would have ruled this case based on legal directives. First, companies and corporations have their tastes and preferences that would represent the image of their brands and products. Legally, it is within their right to have an established dress code for employees because it keeps everyone in uniform and embodying the brand as a group. Legally, there are workplace dress code policies to be adhered to in every company or corporation. According to these policies, dress codes help employees to understand the appropriate work attire in a given organization. More so, these policies help employees to develop expectations towards the image of the company. According to Mr. Johnson, Ms. Djarra was aware that the Flip Burger Joint wore official attire without a headscarf as a requirement. Furthermore, after spotting Ms. Djarra with the veil, the defendant immediately warned her against it and gave her an alternative of taking a leave, observe her resume to work after it was done.
Employees are the face of every company, and employers have a right to preserve this image. However, employers should understand that there are situations where employee appearance qualifies for legal protection. Some jurisdictions have enacted laws meant to protect e employees from discrimination about their appearance. Some aspects like gender, social orientation, and religion can qualify for legal protection. As much as it is a requirement for a workplace dress code to be clear and specific, it is also a requirement that it is flexible. Thus, employers should discrete in addressing dress code matters such as religious, disability, and specific case issues. In this case, there were issues in religious expression. Legal stipulations require companies to be exceptional in dress code choices if employees are sincere to their religious belief and avoid conflicting with this belief as long as the attire does not impose a safety issue to the employee. According to the EEOC religious discrimination section, it acknowledges that religious attires may include clothes, head or face attires, and jewelry, among other items.
From the above explanations and legal expressions, I find Mr. Johnson violating Ms. Djarra’s freedom to worship and express his religious belief through wearing a headscarf. This case presents some of the legal exceptions stipulated in the dress code policies that employers should be flexible and discrete during specific-case issues. Since dress code policies expect companies to have exceptions, especially when the attire is for a religious belief and does not impose safety issues on the employee, Mr. Johnson violated this policy. He showed some level of discrimination against her religious faith (Vickers, 2016). However, the complainant did offer the plentiful reasonable accommodation towards the conflict. He asked Ms. Djarra to take a leave and observe her religious festive until it is done. Professionally, allowing Ms. Djarra to report to work with her headscarf would have signified a favoritism expression to other employees. It was ideal that he requested her to take leave and come back after the festival was over. But arguably, it was a requirement that carries out a legitimate religious discussion with Ms. Djarra and, in case of doubts in the sincerity of the religious attire as nature or just a belief; Mr. Johnson had a right to seek further clarification from the plentiful.
There are limitations on the amount of compensation discriminated parties receive. This depends on how big the company in question is. For instance, employers with 15-100 workers should not exceed a compensation amount of $50,000, while companies with 101-200 employees pay $100, 000 as a maximum fee. Averagely, conciliation is approximately $20, 000. However, this is payable after the EEOC asserts that the case has discrimination and offers stronger evidence against the employer other than what o presented by the employee alone.
References
Borstorff, P. (2011). Protecting religion in the workplace? What employees think. Journal of legal, ethical, and regulatory issues, 14(1), 59.
Gregory, R. F. (2011). Encountering religion in the workplace: The legal rights and responsibilities of workers and employers. Cornell University Press.
Vickers, L. (2016). Religious freedom, religious discrimination, and the workplace. Bloomsbury Publishing.