Race and religious discrimination in Joe's Bakery hiring case

Discrimination Law

"Race Color Discrimination, " Eight categories encompass race discrimination Essay Question: Section 15 EEOC's Compliance Manual, "Race Color Discrimination, " guidance analyzing charges race color discrimination Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964.

Discrimination essay question:

Joe's Bakery advertised in the local newspaper for an assistant baker. Muhammad, a recent honors graduate of the Culinary School of America, applied for the position and was told that the position had been filled. Muhammad is of Middle Eastern descent and practices the Muslim faith. The following day, and for nine consecutive days thereafter, Muhammad saw the ad in the paper again. Joe's Bakery employs seven people, including Joe. Do the facts satisfy the requirements for a prima facie case? If so, can Muhammad pursue a claim for discrimination against Joe's Bakery?

Studies have shown that applicants that 'sound' white over the phone and have white-appearing names on their resumes are more likely to be asked to interview for a job (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman 2009: 282). However, making a case for discrimination can be difficult. Joe can always claim that he was going to hire someone else but changed his mind; claim that he forgot to remove the advertisement from the newspaper for several days; or otherwise 'cover his tracks' regarding his discrimination against Arab-Americans. Discrimination in hiring can be very difficult to prove unless it is shown that a company is disproportionately of one race or ethnicity compared with the general pool of likely applicants. Joe's Bakery is so small, making a case based upon numbers would be challenging.

Muhammad does seem have a prima facie case for discrimination under the law. He can show that he is a member of a protected class given his racial and religious status; that he is qualified and applied for an open job yet was rejected; and finally he has proof that despite Joe's assurances that someone else was hired, the position remained advertised in the newspaper (Proving employment discrimination, 2013, Legal Match). However, even if he can prove that Joe lied and the position remained unfilled, this does not automatically mean that Muhammad will win his case. "The ultimate victory for the employee…is proving that the employer gave a false pretext for the discrimination and that the reason for the false pretext was to cover up discrimination" (Proving employment discrimination, 2013, Legal Match).