Employers for a longtime now have been indulging in incriminatory practices basically when it comes to recruiting new employees into their organizations. Furthermore, in such areas where the Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 prohibits managers from acting discriminatory towards employees or potential employees due to their religion or rather religious affiliations and beliefs and more to that the creed also necessitates employers to rationally accommodate the spiritual practices of workers provided that those realistic adjustments do not bring undue hardship to the employer (Rasnick & Margaret, n.d.).
A legal issue in mind involved a discrimination act done to a Jewish applicant by the Convergys Company. Apparently, the company had placed a commercial stating that candidates for a client service position ought to be capable to work an adaptable working schedule as well as overtime. During the interview the Jewish applicant went further to tell the company’s recruiter that he unluckily wouldn’t be capable to attend work on the Sabbath day which is set for Jewish religious activities. The recruiter supposedly retorted that if interviewee was unable to work on Saturdays, then interview was seemingly over.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
The case was launched which pointed out that the company had violated the decree on discrimination by declining to employ the Jewish interviewee based on his rejection to work on Sabbath day because of his religious affiliations. The EEOC body which had filed the complaint wanted legal action to be taken against the Convergys company from turning down to hire on the base of belief and also denying rational religious adjustments to the Jewish applicant. Therefore, it was evidently clear that the company had desecrated Title VII of the law by rejecting to appoint the interviewee without even conversing probable accommodations for his religious conviction. This led the company being required to pay out $15,000 so as to settle the court case (Rasnick & Margaret, n.d.).