Legal & Ethical Scenarios: Select Two Of The Scenarios Provi

Legal & Ethical Scenarios Select two of the scenarios provided below

Analyze the facts in the scenarios and develop appropriate arguments/resolutions and recommendations. Support your responses with appropriate cases, laws and other relevant examples by using at least one scholarly source from the SUO Library in addition to your textbook for each scenario. Do not copy the scenarios into the paper. Cite your sources in APA format on a separate page.

Scenario I: Employment Law Carole Smith, an Apostolic Christian, worked as sales associate at Nickels Department Store. One afternoon, during a break, Smith participated in a conversation about God, homosexuality, and same-sex marriages. The next day, an employee told the manager that Smith made inappropriate comments about gays to Casey, a Nickels employee who was gay. Over the next five weeks, Nickels investigated the incident by interviewing and obtaining statements from employees who were present during the conversation.

In his statement, Casey reported that Smith pointed her finger and said that God does not accept gays, that gays should not be allowed to marry or have children, and that they will burn in hell. Three employees confirmed Smith’s statements. Nickels terminated Smith's employment after concluding she had engaged in serious harassment in violation of its Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy. This policy, of which Smith was aware, prohibits employees from engaging in conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment based on an individual's status, including sexual orientation, and provides that employees who violate the policy will receive "coaching and/or other discipline, up to and including termination." Nickels has "zero tolerance" for harassment "regardless of whether such conduct rises to the level of unlawful discrimination or harassment" and treats serious harassment as gross misconduct and grounds for immediate termination.

Smith filed suit, alleging her termination for stating that gays should not marry and will go to hell—a belief that she maintains is an aspect of her Apostolic Christian faith—constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title VII. Is she correct? If Smith posted the same information on her Facebook page but omitted references to the specific employee, would the outcome of her lawsuit for wrongful termination change?

Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing the employment law scenario involving Carole Smith at Nickels Department Store, it is essential to consider the implications of workplace policies and federal anti-discrimination laws. Smith, an Apostolic Christian, made statements during a break that expressed her religious beliefs about homosexuality. These statements were reported by her colleague Casey, leading to her termination under the company's harassment policy. The core legal question revolves around whether Smith's religiously motivated speech falls within protected speech under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and whether her termination constitutes unlawful discrimination.

Legal Framework and Analysis

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Importantly, the statute also protects employees from religious discrimination, requiring employers to reasonably accommodate employee religious beliefs unless doing so imposes an undue hardship (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j)).

In this scenario, Smith's statements about gays and her expression of her religious beliefs could be seen as protected speech under the First Amendment and Title VII, particularly if her comments were rooted in her religious doctrines. However, the key factor is whether her speech created a hostile work environment or harassed others, as defined by the company's policies and applicable law.

The Supreme Court in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) clarified that a work environment becomes legally hostile when the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating or abusive work environment. In this case, Nickels deemed Smith's comments as serious harassment, leading to her termination.

Moreover, the company's policies explicitly prohibit conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment based on an individual's status, including sexual orientation. The company acted promptly after receiving complaints, which is a critical factor. Nonetheless, Smith argues that her religious beliefs should be protected because they are part of her faith and that her statements did not amount to unlawful discrimination or harassment.

Analysis of the Fairness of Termination

Courts have generally held that religious expression is protected under laws addressing religious discrimination, but this protection is limited when such expression results in harassment or disrupts workplace harmony. If Smith's statements, although religious in nature, were deliberately offensive or created a hostile environment for others, her actions could justify her termination under the company's zero-tolerance policy.

Alternatively, if her statements were solely religious beliefs expressed during a break, not intended to harass or intimidate others, and were not pervasive, her termination may be challenged as unlawful discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the termination was justified based on the company's harassment policy and not on religious discrimination per se.

Impact of Social Media posts

If Smith posted her beliefs on Facebook but omitted references to her coworkers, her lawsuit's outcome might differ. Courts often examine the context and whether the online conduct caused a hostile work environment or harassment. Posts that are private or not directed at coworkers may be viewed as less threatening or disruptive than in-person comments made at work. However, if the posts were widely viewed and caused disruption or harassment, she could still face disciplinary action.

In conclusion, while Smith's religious beliefs are protected under Title VII, the context and manner of expression are critical. If her comments created a hostile work environment, her termination may be justified. Conversely, if her statements were purely religious beliefs expressed in an isolated manner, her claim of unlawful discrimination might succeed. Courts will assess the totality of circumstances, including the company's policies and the impact of her speech.

Recommendations

Employers should ensure their policies on harassment explicitly distinguish between protected religious expression and conduct that creates a hostile work environment. Employees should be educated on respecting diverse beliefs while maintaining workplace harmony. Employees, on the other hand, should be aware that expressions that cross into harassment or intimidation, even if religiously motivated, can result in disciplinary action.

References

• Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993).
• 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII.
• McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
• O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996).
• Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
• Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998).
• EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015).
• Schwemmle v. Hantak, 390 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2004).
• McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961).
• Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 1993).