Religious Discrimination at Burger Joint: A Title VII Analysis

Abstract

Instructor’s Name Introduction Religion, belief, and employment are contentious topics in law today. The Burger Joint case involves two parties; Mr. Johnson, the company’s manager and defendant, while Ms. Djarra is an employee and acts as the plaintiff. The company’s policy stipulates that all employees put on appropriate attire during work as designed by the Company. Mr. Johnson and Ms. Djarra were in a good relationship. Mr. Johnson testified that she was a good employee and worked diligently for the service of the company. Loggerheads arose in Ramadhan, where Ms. Djarra put on a headscarf to work, which was against the company’s policy. Some customers were not happy with the issue and confronted her with mean words terming her a terrorist, which as a Muslim she wasn’t bothered since she was used to getting such stereotyping remarks. Mr. Johnson requested Ms. Djarra be laid off for the Ramadhan period but Ms. Djarra could not survive the tough economic time off work without pay and Mr. Johnson had no choice but to fire her. Ms. Djarra sued the Burger Joint company for wrongful firing. This discussion will provide an IRAC analysis of the Burger Joint Case proving that the case amounted to religious discrimination. IRAC Analysis Issue The main issue in contention in the case is whether Ms. Djarra has established prima facie against Mr. Johnson on religious discrimination. Religious discrimination includes verbal microaggressions, social exclusions, stereotyping, and other religious symbols and holidays (Schneider et al., 2022). Under Title VII, the employer must find reasonable accommodation to solve a religious conflict with their employer unless the accommodation brings undue hardship to the employer’s business. the issue also entails reviewing damages under Title VII and ascertaining if there are any damages that should be awarded to the plaintiff in case of any. Rule Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of, among other things, religion (Greenawalt, 2002). Title VII proves unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge an individual based on religion. Ms. Djarra must prove that she is a Muslim and that her religious beliefs conflict with Burger Joint company policies. She must also prove that the employer was aware of his belief in the past eight months working for the company. Ms. Djarra must prove that she lost her job for failing to forfeit her religious beliefs at the expense of company policy. The burden of proof lies with the employer whether he acted in good faith to reasonably accommodate the employer’s religious beliefs and show that the request for accommodation could result in undue hardship to the company’s status. Celebrating Ramadhan and wearing and head scuff showed that Ms. Djarra was a Muslim and was willing to freely express her faith and was willing to lose her job for the sake of religion. Mr. Johnson did not act in good faith, for instance allowing Ms. Djarra to work in jobs that limited her from the customer vicinity. Application Prima Facie Case ([Author]). Ms. Djarra made a prima facie case purporting that Islam which is her Bonafede religious practice conflicts with Burger Joint companies’ policies and was the reason for the adverse employment action. She claimed that, wearing a head scuff during Ramadhan was a way of expressing her religious faith. She added that the heads scuff was the same color as her uniform and did not see any reason why she could not express her faith. Reasonable Accommodation Mr. Johnson asked the plaintiff to take a month off without pay without wearing a head scuff but did not go well with MS Djarra who believed that the economic conditions could not sustain her being jobless. The reasonable accommodation was insignificant at it...