Law homework help

posted in: Research Paper | 0

Write comment for each person (140 words each), total 4 comments

Person 1: Name:YUTING (She/Her)

National Origin Discrimination

In the world today, different races are free to live and work in their country of choice. In big nations like the USA that have one of the world’s best economies, most companies will prefer hiring skilled labor that will support the organization to its productivity. Despite the progress, the United States has made over the years, and racial discrimination remains a big problem to solve (comission).

National origin discrimination occurs when companies or organizations are hiring; they prefer a particular race. Productivity in a company usually depends on staff a company will employ. The market world requires quality in the products for the competition to remain. Hiring skilled workers irrespective of their nationality or ethnicity is essential (comission). However, you will find an employer who will refuse to hire a qualified worker based on race or national origin. The national origin should not determine the productivity of a person once employed in an organization. Policies and strategies set for hiring a worker in a particular company should apply to all the applicants for the job, and the one with most of the qualifications awarded the job.

Moreover, most of the US citizens are Christians. Arabs or those who practice Islam face discrimination in the workplace. The employer perceives that Islam preaches against Christianity. The same way the employer will harass the employees; for instance, Arab employees would be a treat to the national security and the company according to the employer’s race (Ford). This is because some of them come from countries that are in political instability due to terror attacks. Henceforth, they will end up feeling that they are not part of the other employees. The other employees discriminate against them; some will go through the discrimination, but others cannot withstand such national origin discrimination and therefore end up quitting work or fired based on their beliefs. Employment, therefore, denies the people their right to free association, breaking cohesiveness amongst them. Such employees are not even allowed to forge marriages with them.

Other employees have faced discrimination because they do not meet a particular height requirement. For sure, height is not a basis that one fails to get the job; it is evident that the employer does not intend to offer the job to the applicant because of the race the applicant. Besides, The Mexicans and Africans in the Us receive minimum wages and get the least of the posts in an organization because the employer believes that they are very inferior (Midwest New media). To that, they cannot work like equals to his/her race. The whites will get higher positions in the company.

There is a relief to this form of practice in the workplace. Various departments in the government that the issue concerns them have taken action. There are federal laws set in place for the workers, citizens and employers found taking part in national origin, the immigration and nationality act (INA) that protects individuals from workplace discrimination based on their citizenship and protects the immigrants from document abuse (commission). These laws protect them from all the immigration issues. Two, Title of the Civil Rights Act 1964, this federal law protects the employees from other nationality upon national origin discrimination; it is the code that sums up all the difficulties that individuals might face. The individuals could face them while being hired fired, payments and layoffs based on their national origin. It is thus the responsibility of both the affected and the US patriots to fight this backward behavior at work.

Person 2 Name: FRAN

Contemporary Issues in Employment Law

The Employment At-Will Doctrine dates all the way back to 1884. A famous quote from Payne v. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 81 Tenn. (1884)

“Men must be left without interference……to discharge or retain employees at will for good cause or for no cause, or even for bad cause without thereby being guilty of an unlawful act per se. It is a right which an employee may exercise in the same way to the same extent, for the same cause or want of cause as the employer.” (Links to an external site.)This passage is very similarly worded today, on the NCSL website:

At-Will Defined:

“At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

At-will also means that an employer can change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences. For example, an employer can alter wages, terminate benefits, or reduce paid time off. In its unadulterated form, the U.S. at-will rule leaves employees vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden dismissal, a limited or on-call work schedule depending on the employer’s needs, and unannounced cuts in pay and benefits.” (Links to an external site.)

Naturally, as the economy grew in the United States and jobs became more prevalent, so did our workforce, the Employee. When employees began to organize or unionize, Employers were bound to negotiated, collective bargaining agreements which required them to have just cause for disciplinary action or termination, as well as procedures in place for employee grievances.

Exceptions to the Doctrine began to develop in the late 1950’s and continued to the 1980’s. New Jersey recognizes two of these exceptions. They are the Public policy exception and the Implied Contract exception. In the 1960’s however, two Federal legislatures went into effect in order to protect employees from wrongful termination. They were the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII.

Monthly Labor Review, January 2001 3, The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions. Charles J. Muhl Charles J. (Links to an external site.)

Currently, I have a diversified staff of Class 1 (Full-time 40hr salaried & part-time 20hr), Class 5 (Hourly Student), and Class 4 (Casual at-will) employees. I also have three Aligned Supervisors and I am considered a Non-Aligned MSPC manager. That is roughly a total of about 100-125 staff, the number fluctuates based on students who come and go as well as my Class 4 employees. The Class 1 employees are all part of a union and so are the supervisors (different unions of course), the Class 4 casuals are not a part of a Union and neither am I. I have approximately 14 – Class 4 (Casual) employees out of the 100-125 total staff.

Casual at Will employees make $12.00 per hour, and are strictly limited to 19.5 hours per week, and it is a 9 ½ to 10month position. The process for onboarding is grueling, not just for us (the employer) but also for the person applying. Application gets filled out online (step 1), we invite them to attend a New Hire Workshop (pre-requisite to being hired), to view a presentation and talk a little about some of the jobs that they may be doing (step 2). Suppose we would like to extend an offer, they sign a conditional offer letter, get moved to finalist in ROCS (our internal hiring system), next they get sent a Background check link via email, they must complete the link within 3-5 days or the link expires (then we have to request another one from HR and hope the potential new hire submits it). Once the Background check clears, we then schedule a physical exam at Occupational Health. They must pass the physical then fill out the New Hire paperwork and wait to be cleared to start work. This process can take up to 3-4 weeks. Their appointment is good through December 31st, then we must give them a re-appointment letter that will begin on January 1st, if we would like to re-appoint the person. If we decide to end termination early, we must schedule a pre-term conference explaining the reasons why we are ending their appointment early. Things are always documented, these employees are evaluated at 30, 60, & 90 days. If they make it six months, they are eligible to apply for a permanent part time position. (Links to an external site.)

In my opinion, there is too much controversy about the employment at-will doctrine. I feel that at-will employment has its pros & cons.

It is very challenging to onboard and retain an employee in this classification for the simple fact that it is 19.5 hours per week, no health benefits, no paid vacation. At least, they are eligible to earn sick time through NJ Earned Sick Leave Act (NJESL). It is also economical from a P & L perspective. Someone can work in this position for years, if they choose to. Believe it or not we have a lot of tenured Casual employees who are content in this position and do not mind it at all. I always plan for at least 1 or 2 employees not to make it. It does not mean they are not stellar employees’ it may simply mean they found a permanent job elsewhere and I can’t fault them for that, hold them back, nor can I promise to make them permanent or full-time. That I believe, would be an Implied-Contract exception.

In my role, I am a non-aligned (not in a union) no limit, (not eligible for OT) Manager. I live in New Jersey, so at the end of the day I am At-Will. I do not have a contract. At the same time, do I think I have job security, yes and no. Why? Yes, because I am good at what I do, and I am consistent. No, because I do not think any job is secure and we are all expendable.

Person 3 Name: MONTHER

Now Hiring! But not if you have dreads.


To begin it is important to distinguish between race and color discrimination because although the two forms of discrimination are used interchangeably, they are not the same. Race discrimination is when individuals are treated unfavorably because of their race or characteristics associated with their race. (EEOC, Race/Color Discrimination). Whereas, color discrimination is unfavorable treatment based on an individual’s skin tone. (EEOC, Race/Color Discrimination). Legislation has evolved in an effort to protect individuals from this type of discrimination, but discrimination does not go away until society, not just law, has evolved. One of these legislative evolutions is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protects against “employment discrimination on the basis of race and color.” (EEOC, Facts About Race/Color Discrimination).

Illustrative of this notion of color and race intermingling with discrimination in the workplace is EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Sols.. The EEOC represented Chastity Jones, who applied to work for Catastrophe Management Solutions. Her employment offer was rescinded by CMS because she refused to cut her dreadlocks which violated the employer’s grooming policy. The district court dismissed this case for failure to state a claim, to which EEOC appealed. The appellate court stated that dreadlocks were not an immutable characteristic for black persons, an immutable characteristic would be an inherited physical characteristic. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Court).

The EEOC defines immutable characteristics are skin color, hair texture, or facial features. (EEOC, Facts About Race/Color Discrimination). EEOC gave an example of a “no-bread” employment policy may be considered discriminatory if the policy is not related to the job and consistent with the needs of the business. (EEOC, Facts About Race/Color Discrimination). This idea is somewhat consistent with EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Sols. because there is an employment policy in place requiring an employee to remove a portion of their racial character. But when does the line need to be drawn and to what point can an employer fire or be selective in the hiring process because of an individual’s race or color or characteristic associated with either?

Opinion Statements

I think the answer to my last question, is more than ever as a society we need to draw the line. We cannot keep letting employers dictate whom they can hire or fire because one person has a beard or dreads. In the example of EEOC, the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but how does an employee or perspective employee state a claim. It is not likely that an employer will outright say that an employee’s dreads or beard are the reason they will not receive a position or will be fired. When a society is able to hold employers accountable for the actions then maybe the judicial system will also hold employers accountable. A quick judicial evolution will hopefully lead to a different outcome than that in EEOC, an outcome where discrimination based on race and/or color will not be tolerated in the workplace.

Person 4 Name: QUINCY

“Dot Your i’s and Cross Your T’s in the WorkPlace” : Quincy Douby


Living in America with so many different religions can be complex in the workplace. One thing that can help with dealing with religion in the workplace, is that business owners should implement policies and classes to educate managers and employers on how to deal with religion in the workplace. For some people, their religion is the most important thing in their life. Without any clear religious policies, business owners put pressure on management and leaders to make free-styled decisions, which sometimes leaves employees with hurt feelings that can potentially end up in a lawsuit, which can go on for years.

Described in the article, Religion in the Workplace: What Managers Need to Know, it explains how a clothing company named “Abercrombie & Fitch” discriminated on a woman wearing a headscarf, that symbolizes her muslim lifestyle. It was later proven that a senior manager blocked her from being hired and the woman won the lawsuit. The article goes on to say that, “The reason: he (the manager) said the headscarf she wore as a symbol of modesty in her muslim faith clashes with the store’s dress code” (Gerdeman, Religion in the Workplace: What Managers Need to Know, pg. 2). This is not a reason not to hire someone that doesn’t meet store dress code, it states under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “It’s illegal to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex or national origin” (Gerdeman, Religion in the Workplace: What Managers Need to Know, pg. 2). Business owners and leaders must rethink some of their brand practices because it might be discrimination towards certain workers.

Some people may look at this issue as being unfair because some companies want a specific image of their brand. Senior lecturer at Harvard Business School, Derek Van Bever explains, “Employers need to understand that where that runs into trouble is when their business prerogative conflicts with a persons fundamental religion” (Gerdeman, Religion in the Workplace: What Managers Need to Know, pg. 2). You have to be accommodating to people’s religious rights. You don’t have to agree with a persons beliefs, but must attempt to be reasonable and compromising. Bever goes on to say, “If an employee can’t work on the Sabbath, the employers should see if someone else could cover that day” (Gerdeman, Religion in the Workplace: What Managers Need to Know, pg. 3). To avoid messy court disputes, taking peoples religion into consideration can prevent pointless settlements, you can’t just say you won’t hire someone because they have a hat on their head. “You have to prove to the court that you heard the employee out and you made an offer of reasonable accommodation” (Gerdeman, Religion in the Workplace: What Managers Need to Know, pg. 3). Compromising work policies for religious dress codes is a law. In the article, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it explains the law as “Religious accommodation/dress code and grooming policies…an employer must reasonably accommodate an employees religious belief or practice…such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim head scarf (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, pg. 2). Employers must make reasonable adjustments for employees religion in the work environment, business owners should also make sure managers and employers are properly trained and know the American laws so that they can make better decisions when dealing with diversity and religion.


Employees help businesses become successful and diversity grows the business to higher levels. There was a point in my life when I became very judgmental of people who practiced the Muslim religion, so I can understand how people can sometimes judge people based on their beliefs. The more I educated myself and got to personally get to know people who were Muslim, I realized I was wrong. You shouldn’t judge innocent people for a few others actions. My opinion on Muslims came when I learned that the people that caused the attack on The World Trade Center, were Muslim. I was still a kid living in New York at the time of the tragedy, hearing how thousands of innocent people perished angered so many people and according to the media, Muslims were to blame, so my idea of the religion, was completely biased and fear based. Playing in the NBA however, I got a chance to play with two Muslim players. They were the nicest and most welcoming people I have ever met. I was invited to their homes and got to meet their families. They had a lot of respect and discipline that was like nothing I have ever seen before. One of them actually became a mentor to me and would constantly give me advice on life and how to appreciate every opportunity. The other Muslim player was from Turkey and would tell me so many stories of growing up there, an 80% Muslim country. I was interested in traveling there and when an opportunity presented itself to play professionally in Turkey, I jumped on it. It was one of the best decisions I’ve ever made in my career because I got to experience the Muslim culture on another level. All of the domestic players were Muslim and they all welcomed me as part of their family.

My teammate from Turkey that played with me in the NBA, Hudo Turkalow, was revered as somewhat of the “Michael Jordan” in Turkey and because of him, they televised every NBA game and I was able to watch every one, while being in Turkey. I was shocked to see how many NBA fans Turkey had and they actually knew the players names in the NBA. They even knew me and my stats; my complete background and accepted me being Christian as well. With this experience, I understand how important it is to not discriminate in the workplace, we can learn a lot from each other. This ultimately is an example of an NBA employee taking the NBA and helping it become global, growing diversity through a broader audience; taking the profession to another level.


Last Updated on November 16, 2020 by EssayPro