religion discrimination at workplace
152271044
Examining the Effects of Exposure to Religion in the Workplace on Perceptions of Religious Discrimination
Charges of religion related employment discrimination have doubled in the past decade. Multiple factors are likely contributing to this trend, such as the increased religious diversity of the US population and the increased interest of employees and some employers in bringing religion to work. Using national survey data we examine how the presence of religion in the workplace affects an individual's perception of religious discrimination and how this effect varies by the religious tradition of the individual. We find that the more an individual reports that religion comes up at work, the more likely it is that the individual will perceive religious discrimination. This effect remains even after taking into account the individual's own religious tradition, religiosity, and frequency of talking to others about religion. This effect is stronger, however, for Catholics, Mainline Protestants, and for the religiously unaffiliated. In workplaces where religion is said to never come up these groups are among the least likely to perceive religious discrimination. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Evangelical Protestants are more likely to perceive religious discrimination in the workplace even if they say that religion never comes up at work, which makes the effect of exposure to religion in the workplace weaker for these groups. These results show that keeping religion out of the workplace will largely eliminate perceptions of religious discrimination for some groups, but for other groups the perceptions will remain.
Christopher P Scheitle Elaine Howard Ecklund
221756854
Gender Discrimination in Media as Workplace: A Study of Media Environment in Sindh
This study explores media industry in the province of Sindh, Pakistan for gender discrimination. It is generally believed that gender discrimination is based on patriarchal conception of society and is greatly rooted in culture whereas the economical and social models are also responsible for inculcating discrimination based on gender. But the changing patterns of social institutions and the transforming trends in financial designs are determining new standards and definitions. Although the feminist theorists and feminist's movements have played magnificent role for the eradication of gender discrimination but the mindsets are still to be changed because they are hardened by socialization and cemented by customs, culture and religion for centuries. This research attempts to consult working journalists for whether they have faced, or facing, or observed, or observing discrimination within the media theatre, or the field is free of these curses. This study employs survey technique using a close ended questionnaire constructed under Guttmann Scale. It also conducts face to face interviews with senior journalists in Karachi, Hyderabad and Larkana implanting snowball method to deeply explore the media environment in Sindh for gender discrimination. On the basis of its findings, this research offers some implications and suggestions for policy framing and future research.
Pakistan Journal of Gender Studies
Fazal Hussain
195477729
DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS: NOTES FOR A CRITICAL REFLECTION
The purpose of this study is to analyze religious discrimination in work environments under the aegis of freedom as worthy of protection as opposed to the right to business freedom. With the scope of religious freedom and its limitation parametrized, the article determines in which cases and conditions conduct can be characterized as intolerance or be considered by the employer as reasonable accommodation of religion in the scope of work. To perform this analysis, a qualitative approach was used, with bibliographic and descriptive methodological procedures. It is concluded that, to protect freedom of belief and religion, liberal theory (legal policy) is used for the promotion of individual autonomy and human dignity.
Revista Direitos Sociais e Politicas Publicas (UNIFAFIBE)
Joedson de Souza Delgado Gabrielle Jacobi Kolling
52103416
Title VII's Statutory History and the Sex Discrimination Argument for LGBT Workplace Protections
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Seventh Circuit have taken the position that Title VII's bar to employment discrimination "because of sex" applies to discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons. This interpretation follows from the ordinary meaning of the statute, read as a whole and in light of its purpose. If an employer fires a woman because she is married to another woman, rather than a man, the employer has, literally, acted "because of" her sex (if she had been a man, marriage to a woman would have been fine) and because of the sex of her partner. It is hard to deny that "sex" is not at least one "motivating factor" in the employment decision, which is all that the current version of Title VII requires for liability. Moreover, this reading of Title VII accords with its purpose, which is to entrench a merit based workplace where specified traits or status based criteria (race, color, national origin, religion, and sex) are supposed to be irrelevant to a person's job opportunities. Treatment of anti gay discrimination as a form of sex discrimination is not a new idea, but for several decades most federal judges have rejected it, and most Members of Congress have ignored it. This is an idea that has ripened over time, however. New circumstances have rendered the argument not only plausible but compelling. The biggest new development has been social facts and assumptions about sex minorities: In 1964, employees thought to be "homosexuals" were outside the scope of the merit based workplace, because Americans believed them to be mentally ill, psychopathic, and predatory. Today, those views have been discredited, and this connects with a second new circumstance, a radically different constitutional baseline. As late as 2003, "homosexuals" could constitutionally be considered presumptive criminals, but the Supreme Court has for twenty years been developing a constitutional norm that gay people cannot be excluded from the law because of who they are. Indeed, the Court has ruled that the constitutional right to marry applies to same sex (i.e. "homosexual" couples. It is constitutionally jarring to know that, in most states, a lesbian couple can get married on Saturday and be fired from their jobs on Monday, without legal redress. A third new development has been the formal evolution of Title VII itself. Judges as well as commentators have largely ignored the "statutory history" of Title VII its formal evolution through a process of amendment by Congress and authoritative interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Trump Administration and other skeptics of a broad reading of sex discrimination maintain that Title VII divides the world into males and females and does nothing more than require employers to apply the same rules to both sexes; anti homosexual workplace exclusions or harassment operates equally on both sexes (i.e. both lesbians and gay men are harmed) But the Supreme Court has authoritatively interpreted Title VII to bar gender stereotyping, which also operates to protect both male and female employees alike. Congress ratified and expanded upon that interpretation in its 1991 Amendments to Title VII, which also reaffirmed its statutory mission to ensure a merit based workplace free from sex based decision making, even when sex is but one "motivating factor" in the discrimination. Because LGBT persons are gender minorities and because anti LGBT discrimination is rooted in rigid gender roles, Title VII today bars discrimination because of the sex of the employee's partner/spouse, just as it bars discrimination because of the race or religion of his or her partner/spouse.
William N Eskridge
213045900
Skill Underutilization and Under Skilling in Europe: The Role of Workplace Discrimination
This article examines the effects of discrimination based on race, ethnic background, nationality, religion, sex, age, disability and sexual orientation on skill underutilization and under skilling in 30 European countries. People who experienced a variety of forms of workplace discrimination were more likely to report over skilling, defined as having skills for more demanding roles than required for their job. Paradoxically, some forms of labour market discrimination were also linked to under skilling, where people report requiring more training to fulfil their job role. The findings are explained in terms of how discrimination in the labour market can have differential impacts on access to career progression and training opportunities across organizations. Differences between self report and statistical estimates of discrimination are observed. Broader implications for the interpretation of statistical models in discrimination research are discussed.
Work, Employment and Society
Anthony R Rafferty
55432206
Effects of Workplace Discrimination on Employee Performance
Human resource managers face challenges while attempting to provide equal opportunities for all employee in the workplace. Ideally, a workplace that has diversities benefits from creativity and innovations that result from the variety of talents in the workplace. A prejudice in the workplace includes sex, sexual preference, age, color, religion, and disabilities (Denissen, Saguy, 2014) Discriminations in the workplace occur because of factors such negative stereotypes about people of specific traits, personal test and preferences, and inability to understand personal conflicts. It also emanates from a lack of respect to diversity, excessive leisure time, skepticism of complaints, poor recruitment procedures, and poorly trained employees. Analytically, most of the causes of discriminations of all types in workplaces revolve around the role of human resources managers. For example, employees with adequate training understand the discriminations laws and can easily cope with other employees. The failure of the human resources managers to administers enough screening for the employees result in unlawful practices of discriminations in the workplace (Sperino, 2013) Additionally, excessive leisure time in the workplace is the genesis of all vices in offices. Often, human resource managers do not monitor the employees during their leisure time. As a result, the employees tend to engage in discussions that promote discriminations because of gender, ethnicity, and religion. The topic for study seeks to narrow down discriminations in a workplace to the effects of the subject on the employee performance. The entire work is a study of workplace environment and giving attentions to the effects discriminations as a contemporary issue in management.
Goodluck Chimezie Uncle Elei
157409594
Is there a place for the Islamic veil in the workplace? Managerial prerogatives and the duty of reasonable accommodation in the EU anti discrimination governance
This article analyses whether an employer may justify a ban on religious symbols because of economic interests, such as the protection of a company's image or customer preference. It explains the concept of managerial authority and conditions under which economic interests must yield to the principle of non discrimination. It also suggests a method of aligning the duty of accommodation in the justification of derogations to non discrimination. It posits that the employer needs to demonstrate that accommodating religion in a particular post or position would impose a disproportionate economic burden on the company. It concludes that the Islamic veil controversy demonstrates a need for tailor made solutions in the private employment context and a shift from norm compliance to anti discrimination governance.
Anna Sledzinska-Simon
148493084
The 'reasonable accommodation' of religion: Is this a better way of advancing equality in cases of religious discrimination?
Freedom of religion and the manifestation of religious belief can clash with working life in a number of ways, including time away from work for religious observance, conflicts over religious clothing and jewellery in an employer's dress code or a request for a variation of duties based on a particular religious belief. Guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (2013) following Eweida and others v. UK [2013] 57 EHRR 8 seems to suggest that employers in Great Britain should consider the 'reasonable accommodation' of religion in the workplace and, in particular, how an individual chooses to manifest that religious belief. Subsequently, there has been much debate about whether this is a better way of dealing with religious discrimination cases than the current complex legal framework of direct and indirect discrimination in the Equality Act 2010. Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 already allows for reasonable adjustments to be made to working practices and the physical working environment for disabled employees. Should this duty be expanded to include religion and what would be the consequences and impact of such an accommodation or adjustment on the employment relationship?
Elizabeth Griffiths
143982898
Religious Discrimination in the Workplace: An Emerging Hierarchy?
This article considers some of the more high profile cases decided under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, to assess whether courts are developing case law which adequately protects religion and belief at work. First, it considers the meaning of religion with particular reference to Nicholson v Grainger PLC and suggests that this may represent a step in the wrong direction in defining 'belief' It then looks at cases which have involved religious individuals seeking to manifest religion at work in terms of religious dress. It critically examines the way the concept of proportionality has been used to decide these cases, and suggests that at times courts are stepping beyond their usual boundaries in determining religious issues, with particular reference to comments by the courts on issues such whether particular beliefs are 'core beliefs' The third area of discussion is the question of whether discrimination by religious individuals on grounds of sexual orientation should be tolerated. The case law (Ladele v Islington Borough Council) is considered in detail. In conclusion, the article assesses whether a hierarchy is developing between different grounds of discrimination protection.
Ecclesiastical Law Journal
Lucy Vickers
142275576
Religious Freedom, Religious Discrimination and the Workplace
Chapter 1: Religious Discrimination and Religious Freedom at Work I Introduction II Religion in the UK III Experience of Discrimination IV Tackling Religious Discrimination Chapter 2: Seeking a Definition of Religion and Belief I What is 'Religion' II Defining Belief III Towards a Definition of Religion and Belief Chapter 3: Protecting Religion at Work I Introduction II Why Protect Religious Interests? III Protecting Religious Interests in the Work Context IV The Proportionality Equation: Religion and the Workplace V Conclusion Chapter 4: Freedom of Religion at Work and the European Convention on Human Rights I Freedom of Religion and the Human Rights Act 1998 II Protection of Freedom of Religion Under the ECHR III Freedom of Religion Under Article 9 IV Protection Against Religious Discrimination Under Article 14 V Conclusion 116 Chapter 5: Protection Against Religious Discrimination in the UK I Protection Under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 II Religious Schools III Protection of Religious Interests Which are Not Protected by the Regulations IV Conclusion Chapter 6: Religious Interests in the Workplace: Comparative Perspectives I United States of America II Canada III Europe IV Conclusion Chapter 7: Religious Freedom at Work I A Duty of Reasonable Accommodation? II Protecting Religious Work III Remaining Difficulties IV Conclusion
Lucy Vickers