The following below is for recreational breeding purposes only. It’s an open read illustration of things that quietly go on in some places of employment today. Not all. Claiming religion on the job will open a person to quiet and subliminal discrimination not just from an employee or the DL, but perhaps some coworkers as well. Claiming religion is serious business and in most cases, will cause an employee to be wrongfully terminated and place hard to prove in court or law or before the EEOC-equal employment opportunity commission after the company who wrongfully terminated the employee is investigated by the department of labor and possibly the federal government.

1. Identify and describe the specific issues Maalick encountered in the workplace. Do the actions of other workers at Treton represent discrimination and harassment? What elements of law are important for Treton to consider?

Some issues Maalick encountered was dealing with Strange looks from his co-workers after changing his name. The H.R. department virtually assured him “everything would be okay,” as his new name would be reflected on company records. Furthermore, his office was decorated as a gesture of ignorance on some of his co-workers’ behalfs with dolls with pins sticking out of body parts, something almost like Pinhead from the movie Hellraiser. DeMur-Maalick went on to experience more indirect harassment from co-workers such as notes left on his desk, Requests for palm readings and Mark notices about his disappearance. Employees continued questioning him about his religion that made him feel uncomfortable.

Yes, it’s agreed that the actions of workers at the company do represent discrimination and harassment because they didn’t harass him prior to his name change. Prior to harassment, DeMur-Maalick interacted well within the company and demonstrated enthusiasm in his work, the article mentions. Elements of the law he needs to consider is filing a charge against the company at the EEOC and disclose to EEOC investigators “with accurate documentation of dates and times and names,” how this issue persisted for a length of time and HR failed to intervene. Maalick-DeMur also needs to familiarize himself with “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” This way, he has the law backing him up, should his charge filed with the EEOC against Treton Communications proceed to arbitration or court.

According to an article from Bizjournals, Saint Thomas health hospital terminated an employee after refusing to get a flu shot. The employee claimed religion on the job as a reason for not getting the flu shot. The hospital violated his religious rights and compensated him $75,000 in damages. Bizjournals goes on to mention “Saint Thomas’ actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, according to the release, and the EEOC filed suit.” (Stinnett, 2019). DNN’s opinion of this is Saint Thomas “knew they were breaking the law,” by violating his religious rights and [didn’t care].

2. Evaluate the actions of the HR director, Marta Ford, in response to Maalick’s situation. What could she have done to prevent the situation and what more could she do to ensure that this type of situation would not occur in the future?

Ford played cool in the moment saying she was out of the office helping with new staffing. DNN’s view of this is Marta didn’t know how to immediately respond to Maalick’s report and was possibly buying time to think about how she would respond. Following, Marta could’ve consistently followed up with Malick and encourage him to quietly submit names of anyone he suspected was harassing him so HR could conduct quiet investigations of those possibly involved. Moreover, the human resources generalist and human resources department in general could offer a reward to those who report instances of workplace harassment, and blow the whistle on others who partake in workplace harassment acts as a way of “helping to keep a positive and hostile-free work environment.”

Truth: Some companies today allegedly hide behind their employees if they want a particular employee ousted and put the coworker up to starting trouble with the targeted employee. This employee likely claims religion on the job and they want to use it employee as a means of making the targeted employee who claims religion on the job look like a troublemaker. This is used as “smokescreen game” to oust the targeted employee though it’s considered “wrongful termination.”

Before the targeted employee is “wrongfully terminated before leaving future side hustle millionaire status,” the employer sometimes will secretly threaten the targeted employee by saying things allegedly in the ballpark of [if you ever tell on me]. That’s considered a subliminal and under the table version of “terroristic threatening from employer to employee.” When an employer says to an employee in secrecy “if you ever tell on me,” isn’t that considered as a case of “Felony terroristic threatening?” believe it or not, an employer will threaten employee and say things in the ballpark of those words, caring less if what they said is actually considered [Felony terroristic threatening].

3. How would you characterize Clive Jenkins’ behavior and response to this situation?

Clive Jenkins is “two-faced.” In the beginning of the article, Jenkins was siding with DeMur-Maalick and offered him the job before MarShawn changed his name and started encountering religious harassment. Jenkins [switched up] later down the road on Maalick. He gave the position Maalick applied to to an outside job candidate Charles Bartlett that attends church with Jenkins, after Malick applied to a systems manager position. The systems manager position reported to Jenkins. DNN assumes that after Jenkins found out Maalick “rocked the boat,” Jenkins wanted nothing to do with him.

An article from the AMGLaw legal representation website argues “Examples of acts that may constitute religious discrimination include: Verbal attacks that disparage an employee’s religious affiliations or beliefs Physical assault incited by an employee’s religious affiliations or beliefs Failing to select a qualified job candidate due to his or her religious affiliations or beliefs Passing over an otherwise qualified employee for a promotion due to his or her religious affiliations or beliefs.”(Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, 2018). Many people have been passed over for a decent pay raise. After a wrongfully terminated employee in the past earned a company over $170,000 + in sales on paper, they were given a measley $0.25 cent raise. Then, written up falsely, followed by wrongfully terminated.

4. What resolution to this situation might Judith Dixon suggest?

Vice President for EEO and diversity Dixon at Treton might suggest for everyone to come together and get this issue out in the open. This’ll allow everyone to respectively speak their minds and explore the views – opinions of others who feel some type of way about people at Treton who claim religion.

5. What are the broader implications of this situation for Treton? What type of organizational review might Dixon initiate or suggest from a corporate perspective?

A good strategy on an HR leader’s behalf is to find out who the troublemakers are. Furthermore, deploy virtual foot soldiers in different departments to purposely start small talk about religion, as a means of seeing who’ll feed into the conversation and start giving up fine details, such as who’s been allegedly harassing Maalick. DNN’s opinion-view-feeling of this is it’ll possibly be a great way to not only promote diversity in the workplace, but also save the company from legal religious discrimination liability and make people who practice religion feel welcome in the company, because everyone has unique strengths to contribute. Dixon might follow up with internal memos on the intranet to department managers and employees to see how everyone is getting along with employees of different religions working together. Lastly, as a way of keeping everyone positively connected, the company could put out a monthly newsletter discussing how positive thinking and harmony keeps people connected for the good in the workplace that claim different religions.

 

Food for thought: The same person an employer wrongfully terminates is the same one that’s likely to end up a future “side hostile millionaire,” leaving the employer to feel high and dry and like a “secret fool.” They threw away a million dollar priceless commodity they could never have back because they though with a “rash mind and rash mouth” in the moment.

 

 

References

Allred, & Maroko & Goldberg. (2018, August 09). U.S. Workplaces Not Immune To Acts Of Religious Discrimination. Retrieved from amglaw.com/blog/2018/08/us-workplaces-not-immune-to-acts-of-religious-discrimination.shtml

Stinnett, J. (2019, April 19). Saint Thomas settles religious discrimination lawsuit. Retrieved from
bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2019/04/19/saint-thomas-settles-religious-discrimination.html