Employee Classification and Religious Discrimination in Massage Therapy
This paper examines two interrelated legal and ethical issues arising from a workplace scenario involving Dream Massage. The first issue concerns worker classification: whether a massage therapist hired as an independent contractor is legally an employee based on IRS and common law criteria. The second issue addresses whether the company's dress code policy — specifically prohibiting a worker from wearing a hijab — constitutes unlawful religious discrimination under Title VII of the Equal Employment Opportunities Act. The paper evaluates both the legal standards and the broader ethical implications of rigid dress codes and attempts to circumvent employment law.
- Introduction: Two Key Legal Issues: Overview of worker classification and discrimination questions
- Employee vs. Independent Contractor Classification: IRS criteria applied to massage therapist's status
- Religious Discrimination and Title VII: Hijab ban analyzed under Title VII accommodation rules
- Ethical Considerations of Dress Codes: Ethics of rigid dress codes and religious garb restrictions
- Conclusion: Company conduct judged legally and ethically deficient
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper moves methodically through two distinct legal issues, clearly separating worker classification from discrimination before showing how they are connected — the discrimination analysis depends on the classification outcome.
- It grounds each legal claim in authoritative primary sources (IRS definition, Title VII text) rather than relying solely on secondary commentary, lending credibility to the analysis.
- The paper balances legal analysis with ethical commentary, noting that even where legal enforcement may be impractical, the company's conduct remains ethically indefensible.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates conditional legal reasoning: the author explicitly states an assumption (that Title VII applies to Dream Massage based on its size or multi-state operation) before proceeding with the discrimination analysis. This technique shows awareness of jurisdictional prerequisites and prevents overreaching legal conclusions — a hallmark of careful legal writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by identifying two issues, then resolves them in sequence. Issue one (worker classification) is addressed first because its resolution is a prerequisite for issue two (discrimination law applicability). Each issue receives legal analysis followed by ethical commentary. The conclusion synthesizes both issues and offers a judgment about the company's overall conduct. The references section follows standard APA formatting.
Introduction: Two Key Legal Issues
This case presents two distinct but related legal issues. The first is whether the massage therapist should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. The second is whether Dream Massage has violated employment discrimination laws by prohibiting the worker from wearing her hijab. The resolution of the first issue is a prerequisite for the second, since most employment discrimination protections apply only to employees rather than independent contractors.
Employee vs. Independent Contractor Classification
Dream Massage has hired the massage therapist as an independent contractor; however, the company "exercises complete control over how she does her work," including the provision of clients, the materials needed to perform the work, and complete control over the massage therapist's schedule.
The IRS defines an independent contractor as follows: "an individual is an independent contractor if the payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not what will be done and how it will be done" (IRS, 2017). The level of control that Dream Massage exercises over the massage therapist is not consistent with this legal definition. Both the behavioral and financial aspects of the common law definition point to the person being an employee. It is therefore likely that the massage therapist will be considered an employee for taxation purposes.
It is worth noting that a company exerting some control will not automatically convert a worker from independent contractor to employee (Wood, 2011). However, this case involves Dream Massage exercising full control over the worker, and under those circumstances the worker would be classified as an employee.
References
Aslam, S. (2011). Hijab in the workplace: Why Title VII does not adequately protect employees from discrimination on the basis of religious dress and appearance. UMKC Law Review, 80, 221.
Bahler, K. (2016). What to do if you're afraid to wear a hijab to work. Time. Retrieved October 22, 2016, from
IRS. (2017). Independent contractor defined. Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved October 22, 2017, from https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-defined
Wood, R. (2011). Some control won't convert independent contractors to employees. Forbes. Retrieved October 22, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2011/02/03/some-control-wont-convert-independent-contractors-to-employees/#13de2c434158
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.