Diversity Training Manual (Part 2)

The company can show to the courts that the accommodation of such a religious practice would result in undue hardship for the company. The shift change is being made due to the growth of the company. Not doing this will result in significant financial losses due to lost opportunities. In EEOC

In this case it is clear that company has to undergo hardship to accommodate the employees’ religious beliefs.

Second, in 2013 the 10th Circuit Court ruled, an employee must communicate the disaccord between a religious practice and a work rule. The Court determined that an employee understands whether the practice observed by the employer is predicated in an inflexible religious practice. (10th Circuit Court, 2013) The relevance of this ruling is that only the employee can determine whether or not the employer is being inflexible in

The definition of religion can be subjective and vary from person to person. According to Gregory (2011), as a society, more and more employees are wishing to demonstrate their faith while at work. He further notes that this will continue as individualism and self-expression are more embraced by todays millennials. In addition, Gregory shows that the filing of discrimination based lawsuits rose 75% between 1997 and 2008. Because of this, Cintas Corporation must create a fair policy that meets the legal obligations of the company.

Reasonable Accommodation & Religion: The law requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause difficulty or expense for the employer. This means an employer may have to make reasonable adjustments at work that will allow the employee to practice his or her religion, such as allowing an employee to voluntarily swap shifts with a co- worker.

time off from work to practice their faith and celebrate religious holidays. Employers may face

The laws surrounding the way a company should handle religious practices is defined by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The EEOC (n.d.) states, “The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment,

1. When can an employee’s religious belief qualify as a bona fide occupational qualification? In order to use the BFOQ exception, an employer must prove that no member of the group you are discriminating against could perform the job. Using the religious example, a Lutheran church would argue that only a Lutheran could effectively practice and preach the tenants of their religion and a Catholic would be unable to perform the job due to his or her beliefs.

This says it is unlawful to discriminate against people at work because of their religion or belief. The regulations also cover training that is to do with work.

The United States is one of the most culturally and religiously diverse countries in the world. The founding fathers of the United States wanted to ensure that its people would have the ability to practice their religion with no threat of persecution. In order to accomplish the goal of religious freedom and continue to ensure that all people of any religion would be free to practice their religion, the United States passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits an employer from discriminating based on the religious views of its employees. As the citizens of the United States spend a large amount of time in their places of employment, religious practices that these employees feel are necessary for the true observance of their religion must be accommodated by the employers. This law contends that in cases where the accommodation of religious practices of its employees does not create undue hardships, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for employees to practices the beliefs of their religion. As the demographics of the United States continues to change with more religiously diverse people immigrating to the country, employers are coming under more pressure to ensure they are taking all possible precautions to accommodate the religious practices of its employees. These precautions are important as the once an employee has established a bona fide complaint of religious discrimination, the burden of proof then falls on the employer to prove they

Religion should be allowed in the workplace to an extent. If the vast majority of people in a workplace belonged to a certain religious group utilitarian would allow religion in the workplace. Since it is what the greatest amount of what people want it would be benefiting the greater good. This would be the simplest choice for the utilitarian view point. A utilitarian would also feel obligated to please those people who are the minority in this situation. This is why religion in the workplace would be allowed to a certain extent. A utilitarian would allow religious practices such as prayer to go on in the workplace as long as they didn’t interfere with the work that needs to be done. To take away the practice of a workers religion would be consider morally wrong, so allowing religious practices as long as it doesn’t take away from work would be beneficial to the greater good. I also believe a utilitarian boss would support religion because studies have shown that people with religious beliefs have a higher decision making skills. Thus pleasing those who would rather leave religion out of work and who would like to incorporate things such as prayer. The integration of faith and work has had positive implications at the personal level, as well as for corporate ethics and the broader economic sphere. The study of religion has often investigated beliefs, rituals, and practices, and how they have manifested in various spheres of life (Fry, 2014).

Religion in the workplace can bring up some of the most difficult issues employers have to face. Resolving these issues requires understanding the law and balancing the business's needs with an employee's desire to practice his or her religion. One of the most contentious conflicts is between an employee's desire to take time off and the potential reduction in productivity and profitability. In ruling on Title VII religion cases, the courts have held that employers aren't required to accommodate employees' religious activities when it involves increased financial costs, transferring supervisory personnel or employees from other departments resulting in inefficiency, or discriminating against other employees or violating seniority systems. Accommodations that don't constitute undue hardship to the employer include voluntary substitutions or employee "swaps," flexible work schedules, floating or optional holidays, staggered work hours, and allowing employees to make up lost time. Transfers and job changes also are options if they don't cause reduced efficiency or

Due to Sonia’s religious beliefs management should understand and accommodate Sonia’s personal choice for attire. Because Sonia’s attire does not impose undue hardship on the organization’s legitimate business interests, there is no reason not to allow Sonia’s attire in the work place. In order to prove undue hardship an employer must be able to prove that any accommodation would require more than ordinary business costs, diminish efficiency in other jobs, impair workplace safety, infringe on the rights and benefits of other employees, cause other coworkers to carry the burden of the accommodated employee’s hazardous or burdensome work, or conflict with other laws or regulations (Gross, 2012, para 10).

Cultural differences in the workplace can sometimes become a challenge in the work environment. In order to facilitate these differences, there must be some form of cultural awareness. Cultural awareness can help employees face the challenge of responding to individuals with different religions in the workplace, expose religious practices, and eliminate stereotyping in the workplace. Awareness of religions, and the beliefs associated with different religions, can be accomplished in many ways, such as training courses, workshops or company handouts (Thomas Kochan, 2003, p. 4). Companies must embrace multiculturalism and diversity.

Additionally, the organizations have selected to confine the workers and students in view of religious standings. This is exploitative as there ought to be flexibility of worship and making of decisions. The choice of the general population ought to be permitted. Otherwise, it conflicts even with the standards illustrated in the Bill of rights. The general public is made out of individuals of different religious foundations anyways, or no religious beliefs at all. These differences should be used as positive building blocks for the sake of peace and tolerance amongst all of us.