Case Study On Religious Discrimination And Racial Harassment

Case Study on Religious Discrimination and Racial Harassment

Identify and describe the specific issues Maalick encountered in the workplace. Do the actions of other workers at Treton represent discrimination and harassment? What elements of law are important for Treton to consider? Maalick, formerly known as MarShawn DeMur, experienced multiple instances of discrimination and harassment based on his race and religion while working in his new position. After his weeklong spiritual trip, Maalick came back to find his desk riddled with offensive items.

“When he entered his office, Maalick found it decorated with dolls with pins sticking out of various body parts, witch hats and containers of incense. On the wall behind his desk was a picture of Africa decorated with strange letterings and symbols. In addition, over the next few months Maalick continued to receive offensive materials based on his religion and race. This included a series of notes left on his desk and car referencing black cats, black magic, requests for palm readings and even notices about the disappearance of MarShawn DeMur. He also found several sheets of what appeared to be chants with a title at the top that read “Prayers for Black Folk” on his desk.

Next to the pages was a book titled Mystical Practices from the Negro Experience. These instances show harassment based on his religion and race based on the chants and book left on his desk. I believe there is a clear indication of harassment based on his race and religion according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. According to Title VII, “Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive."

Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws. Maalick reported his concerns to Jenkins expressing his clear displeasure of the acts as well as being intimidated to not speak up at all for fear he would be seen as a “troublemaker”. This is a clear indication that Maalick was being harassed at his place of employment. The elements of law for Treton to consider would be their liability as the employer when an employee is experiencing harassment in the workplace.

According to the EEOC, “It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion. Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person's religious beliefs or practices. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.”

When the employees teased, mocked, and otherwise made the job miserable for Maalick, and after Ford was made aware of the issues, the company was liable to act as defined by EEO laws. Evaluate the actions of the HR director, Marta Ford, in response to Maalick’s situation. What could she have done to prevent the situation and what more could she do to ensure that this type of situation would not occur in the future? Marta Ford did what was required of her as the HR director by calling department meetings and sending an e-mail to all facility employees, reminding them of Treton’s policies regarding discrimination and harassment and reiterating the penalties associated with such actions. She also followed up with Maalick on multiple occasions to ensure that he was no longer being harassed. While her actions were adequate in order to stop the situation after it had occurred and prevented further harassment, there was much that could have been done proactively to avoid this situation to begin with.

I believe Ford should have spoken with department heads to have a refresher course on their anti-discrimination policies once Maalick changed his name and first advised her he received comments and questions regarding the change. In order to prevent further situations, I would recommend Ford implement mandatory diversity training courses to not only the department heads but all of the employees as well. While the email sent out reminding employees of the policies is helpful, I would recommend a training course that also requires each employee to sign an agreement form that they understand the rules and organization’s policies. This signed form can be added to each employee's file and can serve as both a deterrent for future violations and an aid if an employee should be caught violating these policies.

How would you characterize Clive Jenkins’ behavior and response to this situation? I would characterize Clive Jenkins’ behavior as wildly inappropriate. We are first made aware of Jenkins’ religious views as he invited Maalick to his church and made it a point to let him know many employees were also members of his church. There were multiple inappropriate comments regarding Maalick’s religious views, including calling them strange, referring to it as a “so-called religion” and even stating “As an American with African roots, you should have expected some lighthearted ribbing about your conversion to that strange religion of yours. Even you must admit that they do some weird things,”. I believe Jenkins’ actions were unethical in response to Maalick’s complaints of the harassment. He did not take the situation seriously and caused the work environment to become tense and hostile. The less he acted the more the employees harassed Maalick. Jenkins’ also seemed to pass Maalick over for a promotion and favored a church member. Thus, causing Maalick to pursue the filing of the discrimination/harassment complaint. As a supervisor, this behavior is unacceptable and should be reviewed for possible correction and/or discipline.

What resolution to this situation might Judith Dixon suggest? First, I would recommend all hiring for the position of systems manager to be halted until a proper investigation can be completed. If there was discrimination, Dixon must act on multiple levels. Maalick should be assessed to ensure he is qualified for the position and if so, he should be either offered that role or offered a transfer to a comparable role at another facility (if that would make him more comfortable). Then, Jenkins and Ford should both be reviewed and disciplined for their roles in this matter. Jenkins’ actions, as well as inactions, proved that he was at the very minimum, a liability to the organization. He put the company at risk by not taking Maalick’s concerns and acting appropriately as a supervisor. Additionally, Ford made some missteps as well and should be educated and possibly disciplined. While being the HR director is a busy job, she should have been knowledgeable enough to act at the first communication from Maalick that he was receiving questions and comments about his religion and name change. Investigating and identifying the harasser(s) also should have been done in order to ensure those individuals were aware of the policy and were disciplined as necessary.

Broader Implications for Treton

The broader implications of this situation could affect Treton as a company. According to the case, “Treton takes pride in its non-union status and strives to develop policy and implement programs that demonstrate its strong company culture of employee development and empowerment, procedural and operational integrity, and ethical decision-making. To sustain its culture and values, Treton has policies, procedures and guidelines that articulate its expectations of employee and employer behaviors. Promoting and facilitating workforce diversity is a guiding principle for Treton.

The organization has written policies and directives regarding workforce diversity, equal employment opportunity/nondiscrimination and workplace harassment. If word were to get out that Treton had a documented or even potential discrimination and harassment case, they could lose their reputation, customers, and trust from employees. An informal organizational review should be conducted to evaluate its EEO policies across departments to ensure effective implementation, communication, and discipline. This review should include assessments of policies, procedures, training programs, and enforcement practices. The findings can be used to strengthen organizational policies, improve training, and enhance the overall culture of inclusivity and respect within Treton.

References

• Brown University. (2019). Organizational Reviews. Retrieved from University Human Resources.
• Combs, G. M. (2009). Religious Discrimination and Racial Harassment: What Ever Happened to MarShawn DeMur? Society for Human Resource Management.
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Harassment. Retrieved from the EEOC website.
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Religious Discrimination. Retrieved from the EEOC website.
• Society for Human Resource Management. (2018). HR Best Practices for Diversity and Inclusion.
• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2020). Enforcement Guidance on Harassment based on Religion.
• DeLisi, M., & Reiter, S. (2009). Workplace Harassment and Diversity. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 231–245.
• Gutierrez, G. & Wilson, M. (2021). Managing Diversity and Preventing Workplace Discrimination. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(4), 877-894.
• Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Work Design and Organizational Diversity. Organizational Psychology Review, 3(3), 213–234.
• Nunnally, J. (2017). Organizational Justice and Employee Well-being. Human Resource Management Review, 27(2), 210-222.