Statute and Case Law Relationship Paper

Charity Lehman
Cev Smith
Michelle R Wilson
Connie Ferguson-Rangel
MGT 434
April 5, 2006

Introduction

Anti-Discrimination Laws were enacted to "promote fairness, equality, and opportunity within the workplace." More distinctively, these federal employment laws prohibit employment practices that discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender, national origin, color, disability and religion. The same laws also prohibit employers from striking back against those persons who filed claims of discrimination. There are several civil rights statutes that employers must become familiar with and incorporate into their daily business and employment practices. These statutes would include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Age Discrimination Act (ADEA), Equal Pay Act (EPA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Executive Order 11246, and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Religion The first amendment to the United States Constitution states in part “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Author Unknown, 1791). This statute has been at the root of a number of legal issues surrounding the Ten Commandments from Jewish and Christian religion of late. A number of cases from Texas to Maryland to Nebraska have worked their way through the Federal court system with a few being heard by the Supreme Court. Opponents advocate that even religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments placed on public property are a violation of the First Amendment while proponents advocate that the Commandments are a founding part of our legal system and placing them in proximity to public property does not equate to Congress establishing a law respecting religion.

The First Amendment The first amendment does not directly prohibit the display of any religious symbol on public property. This interpretation of the U.S. Constitution has already been established by numerous lower courts, but by looking at the wording of the first amendment, it would appear that this broad interpretation is not what the Constitution is prohibiting. The first amendment clearly states the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion” (Author Unknown, 1791) and the placement of the Ten Commandments is not done by a law from Congress. These are found in "numerous displays of the Ten Commandments and similar religious symbols on federal property, including in federal courthouses, the United States Capitol, the National Archives, the Library of Congress, national monuments and national park lands" (Kozlowski, 2005). These historical buildings and their symbols only reflect the fact that the Ten Commandments were a founding part of our legal system, and the demonstration of these roots is not an encouragement of any particular religion. Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 398 (1963) Adell H. Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, was fired by her South Carolina employer because she would not work on Saturday. In the Seventh Day Adventist, this is a Sabbath day of her faith. She was unable to secure other employment because she would not work on Saturdays. Adell Sherbert filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits under the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act, which provides that a claimant is ineligible for benefits if he has failed, without good cause, to accept available suitable work when offered him. The State Commission denied Ms. Sherbert’s application on the basis that she would not accept suitable work when offered. The courts ruling as seen below: State Supreme Court held: As so applied, the South Carolina statute abridged appellant's right to the free exercise of her religion, in violation of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 399-410. (i) Disqualification of appellant for unemployment compensation benefits, solely because of her refusal to accept employment in which she would have to work on Saturday contrary to her religious belief, imposes an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion. (ii) There is no compelling state interest enforced in the eligibility provisions of the South Carolina statute, which justifies the substantial infringement of appellant's right to religious freedom under the First Amendment. (iii) This decision does not foster the "establishment" of the Seventh-Day Adventist religion in South Carolina contrary to the First Amendment. (findlaw.com April 3, 2006) In the case listed above there was additional information provided. That being the Adell Sherbert was not initially required to work Saturdays. In was not until a couple of years into her employment that a six-day workweek was required by the textile mill. In addition, the appellant did seek employment at three other textile mills all of which required a six-day workweek. In this case, the law prevailed and protected those who it was meant to protect. Adell did not seek employment knowing that she would be able to get out of work on Saturday she was simply trying to make a living and provide for herself, she be also torn by her devout religious beliefs. In her claims for unemployment, she expressed that she would seek work as long as Saturday was not required. She had even offered to obtain employment in a different line of work other than the textile mills. She was not able to secure this employment. Workforce Diversity Workforce diversity is the presence of differences based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, able-bodied ness, and sexual orientation. (Schermerhorn Jr., J.R., Hunt J.G., Osborn R.N., Wiley, 2003, Organizational Behavior (8th ed.), Hoboken, NJ) Large organizations and even the small businesses today encourage diversity in the workplace. “Equal opportunity is the mission statement of every successful business. Many companies are under legislative mandates to be non-discriminatory in their employment practices. Non-compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity or Affirmative Action legislation can result in fines and/or loss of contracts with government agencies. In the context of such legislation, it makes good business sense to utilize a diverse workforce. (Workforce Diversity: Changing the Way You Do Business, R. McInnes, Diversity World/Focus) during recruitments, companies will even add at the end of an employment requirement “An Equal Opportunity Employer.” This means regardless of disability, race, age, religion, or sexual orientation, everyone will be given a fair chance. This chance includes a chance for an interview, a chance to show abilities and skill, and later a chance for other opportunities within the same company. In the workplace a variety of diversity, exist as a norm. Of course, diversity also encompasses a wide variety of other differences, including work experience, parental status, educational background, geographic location, and much more. Gender discrimination Sex discrimination can come in many different faces. Over the years, women have gained access in the work place and have been and the possibility of continuous discrimination based on gender; however, sex discrimination may persist in other ways. Jobs labeled “man-only or “women only” description or unwritten sets of rules for success such as performance or level of attractiveness a requirement for a particular type of position. The Civil Rights Acts of 1964, Title VII, clearly prohibits employers from discrimination against an individual on basis of race, religion, sex, color, and national origin. In Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Company 517 F. Supp. 292 (N.D. Tex. Dallas Div. 1981) The airlines argued that the BFOQ ( Bona fide Occupational Qualification) exception to Title VII’s ban on gender discrimination justifies the company’s hiring of only females for the public contact positions of flight attendant and ticket agents. The airline stated that they wanted to project a sexy image and fulfill it promise to take passengers skyward with love. Southwest argues that hiring female-only is crucial to its continued financial success. From the start, Southwest’s sex appeal has been used to attract male customers to the airline. The flight attendants have come to represent the southwest image. The company’s earning rose from $17 million to $28 million in 1979-1980 when other flight carriers suffered revenue losses. (Bennet-Alexander, Hartman Laura P., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2004, Employment Law for Business, New York, NY) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Unlawful Employment Practices, Sec. 2000e-2. [Section 703] (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor ¬management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To rely on BFOQ, the employer has the burden of proving that all women are necessary to perform the function of the job description. Meaning that hiring the wrong gender would be hurting the business. The Supreme Court found that the airlines function is to transport passengers safely from one destination to another, serve drinks and snacks, assist passengers during boarding and deplaning, and to instruct passengers of emergency exits and equipment locations, and being female is not a qualification required to perform the functions successfully.
Disability
The Americans with Disability Act was passed in 1990 in legislation and is a civil rights act, The ADA is a two-fold act that defines clear communications with any person or persons with a disability as well as requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations when requested. The case cited for this statute is “Tyler v. City of Manhattan (857 F Supp 800 D.Kan. 1994)”. In this case, a student whose disability is vision problems filed a suit to a university for not providing reasonable accommodations. This student is unable to complete tasks as assigned because the learning resources such as library and computer laboratories required for class test taking did not offer accommodations for such a disability. “The courts have held that a public entity violates its obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act when it simply responds to individual requests for accommodation on an ad-hoc basis. (Cardenas)” Meaning, to have a student with vision challenges the responsibility rests with the public institution to have a plan or program in place prior to the student requesting assistance. This student in particular was required to file a suit to obtain the assistance needed to complete the course of study as enrolled. The premise of the ADA is to have these systems in place so when such accommodations are needed they can be met almost immediately. In “Robert Gumson vs. Southwest Airlines and Access Now vs. Southwest Airlines”, Mr. Gumson who is legally blind was unable to utilize Southwest Airlines online only fares which could not be purchased by calling the airline over the telephone. “The Judge indicated that the Southwest site did not constitute a place of public accommodation, thus, there was no link between Southwest.com and a physical, concrete place of public accommodation.” (http://www.webaim.org/coordination/law/us/ada/#national)
Another aspect of the Americans with Disabilities Act is the intent of reasonable accommodation. What is reasonable accommodation? In one instance at the University of Phoenix, a student has a disorder, which gives a high sensitivity to light that if exposed to the wrong type of, or too much artificial light the student will suffer from severe migraines. Once the student made the request to the ADA officer on Campus, the ADA officer discussed with the Director of Operations and although this request fell somewhere in the undetermined area of the ADA it was decided that the school would outfit one classroom on campus with the lighting necessary for this student to remain on campus. This one classroom was utilized for the entirety of the student’s education until completion. In that instance, the University proved to go beyond the requirement of reasonable accommodations to provide a learning environment for that student.

Reference:
Author Unknown. (1791). United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights. First Amendment.

Find Law for Legal Professionals. Sherbert v. Verner. Retrieved April 3, 2006 http://www.findlaw.com

Bennett-Alexander, D.D. & Hartman, L.P. (2004). Employment law for business (4th ed.). [University of Phoenix Custom Edition e-text]. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Schermerhorn Jr. J.R., Hunt J.G., Osborn R.N. Wiley (2003). Organizational Behavior (Eighth ed.) Hoboken NJ
Disability Resources (2006) Retrieved April 1, 2006 at

http://www.disabilityresources.org/DRMlibs-ass-doe.html

Americans with Disability Act of 1990. Retreived on April 1, 2006 at

http://www.webaim.org/coordination/law/us/ada/#national

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved April 1, 2006 at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html)