Religious Discrimination There Is No One Who

Religious Discrimination There is no one who is supposed to be discriminated on the basis of their religion in the workplace. The rights of employees are protected under Title VII. According to Title VII, religion includes all aspects of religious observance and practice coupled with beliefs .Therefore in a workplace situation unless an employer demonstrates that he is not able to reasonably accommodate an employee or even a prospective employees' religious practice or observance without undue hardship on the conduct of the business of the employer (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2009).

In this case MaryJo had every right to file a claim to EEOC. The paper will be an evaluation of the merit to the claim that MaryJo wants to file. First of all every employer is supposed to accommodate an employees religious conflict even if the conflict was not existing when the employee was being hired. Clearly MarJo's proselytizing which is the cause of the conflict started after she was hired.

Therefore the law requires that the employer should accommodate her religious action even if it started after she was employed. This is because the employers' duty attaches to the conflict but not when the conflict arises. The key to ascertain that the basis of a conflict is religious there must be attempts to work out on an accommodation.

Once an employer is well aware of the conflict they must make sure that they try as much as possible in good faith to accommodate the religious conflict and the employee should ensure that they assist in the attempted accommodation.in this case MaryJo made an offer of limiting her proselytizing to certain hours of the day.by declining this offer her employer showed that he was not willing to accommodate the conflict.

This is against the law and therefore MaryJo had ground to form her claim since she tried her level best to ensure that her employer accommodated her and her religious beliefs. The duty to accommodate is only to a point where it will not cause any undue hardship to the employer. There was no undue hardship if MaryJo went on with her proselytizing at specific hours.

This duty to accommodate only applies to religious practices and not religious beleifs.an employer is normally required to accommodate religious practice to an extent which does not present undue hardship on the employer on the other hand religious beliefs have no limitation. This implies that no matter how outrageous or unorthodox an employee religion may seem to the employer is not supposed to take adverse action simply because the employee holds that belief (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2009).

This means that MaryJo's employee was supposed to accommodate her religious practice of proselytizing and accept it since it did not cause any hardship. As more employees come into the workplace and have traditional religions that the employer may not be so familiar with these employees expect that they will be accommodated according to the laws. Therefore there is need by employers to learn to deal with any religious differences that might come up. Therefore MaryJo's employer was expected to accommodate her religious practices according to the laws.

Just as Title VII prohibits religious discrimination it also does prohibit religious harassment there are several guidelines that are given for freedom of.