Employment Law

Elizabeth Larson

[WEEK 5
ASSIGNMENT]

Week 5 Assignment 1

1. When can an employees religious belief qualify as a bona fide occupational

qualification?

An employees religious belief can qualify as a bona fide occupational qualification when
it pertains to the job in questions. The qualifications in questions should be correlated to an
imperative job function and considered necessary in order for successful operation of the
business. For instance, it wouldnt make sense for a Jewish church to hire a Scientologist to be
the pastor. In this case, the job requires that the pastor of the Jewish church to be Jewish, in order
to successfully operate the functions within the church within the parameters of the religion.
From afar this may appear to be a form of discrimination it is in fact not discrimination because
the BFQQ is necessarily put into place in order for the church to function properly. The Jewish
church would have to make being Jewish as a requirement to complete necessary tasks that are
required of the pastor. In cases such as these, a company/business is allowed to discriminate
against people for religious reasons due to BFQQ exceptions.

2. Answer Human Resources Dilemma, Ch 14, #1, p. 355 (Milton, Madden & Herman):

Being that MM&Hs dress code does not address this issue and according to the EECO
(see Religious Discrimination), employers have to give reasonable accommodation for religious
practices. Furthermore, I dont see why they cannot wear turbans; it isnt like the turbans will
cause any burden to the law firm. I could see if they worked in a factory, because that could be a

Week 5 Assignment 2

safety issue. For instance, if their turban got caught in machinery or fell off onto a machine, it
could be a safety hazard. According to the EEOC website concerning religion in the workplace,
if it would not pose an undue hardship, the employer must grant the accommodation
(Religious Discrimination). That being said, MM&H really has no reason to deny the request for
the Sikhs to wear turbans, since it doesnt cause an undue hardship to the employer.

3. Answer Human Resources Dilemma, Ch 15, #3, p. 374 (Johnny Carlton):

First of all, Munson should have explained to Carlton exactly why he was not hired for
the position. For all Carlton knows, it could be that a more qualified applicant was hired instead.
However, without knowing the reason, I can understand why Carlton would think this was a
determining factor when Munson interviewed him. Equal employment opportunity cannot be
denied because of marriage or association with persons of a national origin group; membership
or association with specific ethnic promotion groups; attendance or participation in schools,
churches, temples or mosques generally associated with a national origin group; or a surname
associated with a national origin group (National Origin Discrimination). In this case, Carlton
has an association with a national origin group. That being said, I would say that Carlton is
covered. I would advise Munson to explain to applicants the reason in which they were not hired
when situations like this arise. This way, it would be less likely to happen again.

Week 5 Assignment 3

4. Answer Human Resources Dilemma, Ch 16, #2, p. 392 (Harvey Jameson):

I think first, it would depend on the grounds in which he was terminated. For all we
know, Jameson was stealing from the company or he could have missed a lot of work or
someone filed a complaint of some kind on him that caused him to be terminated to begin with.
In this case, the employer must then provide a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the
discharge. After the employer satisfies this burden, the employee must prove that the employers
reasoning was false and that the real reason was to discriminate (Moran, pg. 379). It explains
further that it is permissible for an employer to hire a less qualified candidate due to salary
constrictions and that as long as the age of the employee is not the factor; it is not in violation of
ADEA.

5. Answer Human Resources Dilemma, Ch 17, #3, p. 417 (Rita Hall):

Hall is covered by the ADA, since dialysis is a form of disability. If her three afternoons
off each week do not create an undue hardship on the company, they have no reason to
accommodate Hall. I believe her compromise is justified, given the circumstances and being that
she is willing to make up the time for the three afternoons she needs for treatment. However, if
she is the only financial analyst employed, I can see how this would be disruptive but if she is
not the only one, I see no reason they wont accommodate accordingly. If a particular
accommodation would be an undue hardship, the employer must try to identify another
accommodation that will not pose such a hardship (Questions and Answers). I do not see how
her request would be an undue hardship by any means. Unless, as I stated above, she is the only

Week 5 Assignment 4

financial analyst, but even if she is Bull and Bear should come up with a plan with Hall to find a
way to meet the needs of the company and still allow her to attend dialysis for her kidney failure.

Week 5 Assignment 5

References
Questions and Answers. (2008, October 9). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from
http://www.ada.gov/qandaeng.htm

Moran, J. (2002). Age Discrimination. In Employment law: New challenges in the

business environment (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

National Origin Discrimination. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2015, from

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm

Religious Discrimination. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2015, from

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm