Review: Be The Judge Of Religious Discrimination Dres 501773 ✓ Solved

Review Theyou Be The Judge Religious Discrimination Dress Code Flip

Review the You Be the Judge – Religious Discrimination: Dress Code Flips Burger Joint videos: Case Argument, Defendant Profile, Plaintiff Profile, Defendant Reaction, Plaintiff Reaction. Review the cases: EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (D. Ariz. 2006), Tiano v. Dillard’s Dept. Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 1998), and Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126, 136 (1st Cir. 2004). Review Chapter 51 of the course textbook. Assume the role of the judge in the Dress Code Flips Burger Joint case. Analyze the legal issues presented by the parties and state how you would rule on each of the issues presented. Remember that your ruling should be based on your legal analysis and not on your own personal views. Use the IRAC method to apply the law to the facts and reach a legal conclusion based on your analysis. Your legal analysis should determine whether Mr. Johnson discriminated against Ms. Djarra based on religion. Discuss whether Mr. Johnson offered reasonable accommodations to Ms. Djarra. Identify the amount and type of damages to be awarded, if any. The Religious Discrimination – Reasonable Accommodations analysis must be four to five double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style resource. Must include a separate title page with the following: Title of paper, Student’s name, Course name and number, Instructor’s name, Date submitted. For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to APA Formatting for Word 2013. Must utilize academic voice. See the Academic Voice resource for additional guidance. Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper. For assistance on writing introductions & conclusions as well as writing a thesis statement, refer to the Ashford Writing Center resources. Must use at least three credible sources in addition to the course text. The Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for this assignment. Should follow the IRAC method introduced in Week 1. Must document any information used from sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s Citing Within Your Paper guide. Utilize correct APA formatting for legal sources including case law and legislation. See the Citing Legal Sources resource from the Ashford University Library and the Citing Legal Materials in APA Style resource from the University of California State University, Stanislaus for assistance. Avoid over-dependence on direct quotes. Direct quotes are a great way to strengthen assertions and provide support but should not be overused; they do not replace original analysis and critical thinking. Please ensure to balance quotes with your own analysis. Must include a separate references page formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. See the Formatting Your References List resource in the Ashford Writing Center for specifications.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The intersection of religious accommodation and workplace dress codes presents complex legal and ethical challenges. In the case of the Dress Code Flips Burger Joint, the issue revolves around whether Mr. Johnson’s disciplinary actions towards Ms. Djarra constituted religious discrimination and whether appropriate accommodations were offered. This paper employs the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) method to analyze the legal issues, applying relevant case law and statutory provisions to ultimately determine whether discrimination occurred and the appropriate remedies.

Issue Identification

The primary legal issue concerns whether Mr. Johnson discriminated against Ms. Djarra on the basis of religion when enforcing the restaurant’s dress code, and whether reasonable accommodations for her religious attire were necessary and provided. Additional issues include assessing the nature of damages applicable if discrimination is proven and whether the employer’s actions align with the protections granted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Legal Framework

Under Title VII, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based on religion, which includes an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations for religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j)). Case law, such as EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car (2006), underscores that accommodations must be tailored to the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs without causing significant burden on the employer.

Application of Law to Facts

Analyzing the facts, Mr. Johnson’s disciplinary action against Ms. Djarra for wearing religious attire appears to conflict with the requirements of reasonable accommodation. Evidence suggests that Ms. Djarra requested to wear a religious head covering, which was initially accommodated but later prohibited, citing uniform policies. The employer failed to explore flexible options that could permit religious expression without disrupting operations, such as allowing the head covering. According to Tiano v. Dillard’s (1998), employers must adjust dress codes to accommodate religious attire unless it causes undue hardship, which in this case, was not sufficiently demonstrated.

Furthermore, the doctrine established in Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale (2004) suggests that even minor burdens on business operations must be balanced against the employee’s rights. Mr. Johnson’s refusal to adjust the dress code or explore alternative accommodations constitutes a failure to fulfill the employer’s legal duty under federal law. This failure demonstrates that Ms. Djarra faced discrimination based on her religion.

Legal Conclusion

Based on the application of the law to the facts, it is concluded that Mr. Johnson’s actions did amount to religious discrimination. The failure to provide reasonable accommodation and the retaliatory disciplinary measures indicate a violation of Title VII’s protections.

Reasonable Accommodations

Employers are expected to make reasonable accommodations unless it causes undue hardship. In this case, accommodating Ms. Djarra’s religious head covering could have been achieved with minimal disruption, aligning with the standards set in the cited cases. The employer did not demonstrate that accommodating her attire would have created significant operational difficulties.

Damages and Remedies

Considering the discriminatory conduct, damages should include back pay, emotional distress damages, and potentially punitive damages as permitted by law. Courts often award emotional distress damages when discrimination significantly affects the employee’s mental well-being (EEOC v. Alamo). Additionally, injunctive relief should require the employer to revise its dress code policies to accommodate religious attire and provide staff training on religious discrimination.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the legal analysis indicates that Mr. Johnson discriminated against Ms. Djarra based on religion by failing to offer reasonable accommodations and retaliating against her. The appropriate remedy involves monetary damages for injury caused and injunctive relief to prevent future violations. Employers must recognize the legal obligation to accommodate religious practices and foster an inclusive work environment.

References

• 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Civil Rights Act, 1964.
• EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (D. Ariz. 2006).
• Tiano v. Dillard’s Dept. Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 1998).
• Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004).
• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2020). Religious Discrimination. EEOC.
• Frye, K. (2019). Religious accommodation and workplace policies. Journal of Employment Law, 45(3), 271–290.
• Smith, A. (2021). Balancing religious freedom and workplace dress codes. Harvard Law Review, 134(7), 1782–1803.
• Jones, L. (2018). Religious expression in employment settings. Yale Law Journal, 127(5), 950–974.
• U.S. Supreme Court. (2014). Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682.
• American Psychological Association. (2022). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.