Religious Discrimination: Aadila’s Case Study
Religious Discrimination: Aadila’s Case Study
(1) What are the best arguments Aadila can advance in support of a claim based on religious discrimination against City Police Office?
Discrimination is the unjust treatment accorded onto a person(s) based on their differences say in age, race, sex or even religious beliefs. Aadila has finds herself in a situation that threatens to be classed as religious discrimination by the City Police Office through their application of their Directive 9. Aalida feels that the denial of her request to dress according to her religion serves as religious discrimination since it would not interfere with her capabilities as a police officer. Aalida has also been subjected to a temporary four-week suspension even after heeding to the warning and not coming to the office with her headscarf on the third day. The whole matter requires that Aadila have good enough arguments in support of her claim that she has been religiously discriminated by the City Police office.
The constitution provides a Title VII that serves as a prohibition against religious discrimination. The law highlights that employers need to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices and observances (Grunloh, 2005). This is also not required if it would result in undue hardship imposition upon the employee. This law can be interpreted to mean that if the beliefs in question provide the employee with a harder time at work, then it is not necessary to apply the law. In Aadila’s case, the law is clear in providing her with a safety net by which she could defend herself by. She is a practicing Muslim, and within her religion women are essentially supposed to cover their heads as a sign of humility among other religious reasons. This then means that the Police Office in this particular case is not being sensitive to her religious beliefs regardless of the presence of laws that protect her from such an incidence.
(2) What are the best defenses City Police Office can raise?
In this particular case, while there are laws in place to provide protection for individuals against any form of discrimination, it is also important for the City Police Office have a defense against Aadila’s claims of religious discrimination. The city police need the best defenses to the matter which means that it may need to be backed by laws or policies. The police force members are the ones that enforce justice which means that they must lead in the observance of high levels of integrity and compliance in their line of duty. Also, within the City Police Office there are rules by which all the members of the task force must comply with which include dressing as per the stipulated code of dressing. A police department usually enlists the use of a code of ethics to regulate and govern the conduct if its work force. Failure to comply is in all cases met with disciplinary action.
These are rules, codes of conduct, are usually received by an employee once they join a particular line of duty. Unless one states their reservations early in advance concerning them it becomes harder to change them down the line. Aadila complied with this dress code for 10 years before coming forward to lodge her claim. Also her lack of adherence to the warnings as well as the denial of her request was seen as insubordination which leads her to receiving the temporary suspension. The matter in totality provides the police force with a strong case against Aadila on the basis that she was not being religiously discriminated but she chose not to comply with the Office’s code of conduct.
(3) Describe one possible accommodation that the City Police Office might consider under these circumstances. Explain the “pros and cons” of the accommodation as a means to promote society’s interests in protecting religious freedom, in promoting diversity and in safeguarding the public.
In the circumstance addressed, the City Police Office should consider allowing Aalida to dress in her religious attire. This is because the law also provides her with the necessary protection against religious discrimination. Regardless of the type of work one finds themselves in, they should be allowed to practice their religion and the beliefs that come with it as long as it does not interfere with their work or cause unnecessary hardship in performance. In this particular case, Aadila’s scarf would only cover her head and the back of her neck and not her face or eyes. This means that she would still be able to perform her duties as a law enforcer without any restrictions. Such an accommodation would promote the societies interests with regard to the freedom of religion and promotion of diversity within the taskforce.
The accommodation of religious expression in the workplace could serve as an advantage since it fosters respect, engenders peace, encourages broader freedoms, overcomes over-regulation as well as multiplies trust (Grim, 2014). These are good for the reputation of City Police as they go well in fostering a safe, diverse society that feels that their religious rights and freedoms are protected. Conversely, such an accommodation also comes with some demerits such as provision of room for exploitation of this right by individuals in justification of wrong doing such as in the case where Aadila still wears her scarf regardless of receipt of warnings. It also may in some instances create a division or provide room for discrimination. These are factors that make it hard to promote the societies interest in protecting the freedom of religion.
References
Grim, B. (2014, May 26). 7 Reasons Why Religious Freedom is Good for Business. Retrieved from https://religiousfreedomandbusiness.org/2/post/2014/05/7-reasons-why-religious-freedom-is-good-for-business.html
Grunloh, L. A. (2005). Religious Accommodations For Police Officers: A Comparative Analysis Of Religious Accommodation Law In The United States, Canada, And The United Kingdom. Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev., 16, 185-187.
