Signature Assignment: Employment Classification and Discrimination

Signature Assignment: Employment Classification and Discrimination

ETH/321

Signature Assignment: Employment Classification and Discrimination

The United States of America, known and exhibited as the land of the free and the land of equality, but is this true? In part this statement is correct, but unfortunately, people live in a world (inside and outside the US) where racism and discrimination still exist in massive proportions. One can see this discrimination on social networks, viral videos and the news involving racist and discriminatory acts. However, is this also the case with companies and organizations? In light of this question, it is imperative to examine the company, Dream Massage, and an employee is hired to be a massage therapist while analyzing the ethics behind potentially discriminatory employment policies.

Whether the Employee Qualifies as an Employee or Independent Contractor

In the scenario regarding, Dream Massage hired the employee as an independent contractor to be a massage therapist. The company requested her to work a set schedule it imposed and to promote business products and services. As such, the business Dream Massage was exercising complete control over how the independent contractor completed her work; however, is she still considered an independent contractor? The IRS defines an independent contractor, as an individual hired to provide results and solutions or finish an expected work (Internal Revenue Service, 2017). The general rule is that the employer can only control or direct the result of the work and not what and how the employee does the job. This issue sets a clear boundary between employee and individual contractor and one can precisely determine that in this scenario, the user is an employee; thus, she should be receiving all work benefits as well including the withholding of taxes.

Whether Dream Massage Potentially Violated Employment Discrimination Laws

Several laws and anti-discrimination acts exist in the attempt to avoid religious discrimination as this is one of the most common forms of discrimination occurring in many countries, not only the United States, followed by race and ethnicity. One of the most discriminatory practices found in the US regarding the religious discrimination is the denial of accommodation. This particular practice would entail the rejection of an exception or change in a workplace rule or policy due to religious beliefs. This act may also include treating employees differently due to not having a religious belief or practice (Workplace Fairness. Religious discrimination, 2018).

Failure to accommodate includes practices in which the employer, requests an employee to work on his/her Sabbath Sunday, for example, even when other employees are willing to swap this work day with the employee that is suffering the discrimination. Another case of the religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, is the one included in this scenario where the employer requests for the employee to remove her Hijab in compliance with the dress code; although, in another light, there may be other employees wearing coverings such as caps or displaying other forms of religious beliefs. A third clear example of discrimination is asking an employee to remove any item or icons placed on a desk or wall that expresses his or her faith; although, other employees are allowed to do the opposite.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals from discrimination based on their religion. In this scenario, a thorough examination should be carried out to verify if wearing a Hijab would create an undue hardship for the employer. Inviting customers to share whether or not an employee wearing a Hijab would offend them is an excellent way to determine if the employer may allow the use of the covering at work. Allowing the employee to wear her Hijab would involve assigning her to customers who would not be phased by her wearing one (Equal Employment Opportunity, n.d.).

Ethical Considerations Behind Maintaining a Rigid Company Dress Policy

When implementing a dress policy, the company has to either be flexible or rigid. There should be no exceptions or loopholes for employees to use to their advantage, because, if so, several ethical issues will begin to arise. If Dream Massage, wanted one of their employees to wear a specific uniform, then all other employees, including staff members and management should adhere to the rules so that there is a fair playing field as it relates to the dress policy.

Conclusion

With all that said, Dream Massage explicitly, from the beginning, began displaying discriminatory behavior against the employee as it was taking advantage of the employee by offering her no benefits. Additionally, the business forced her to work a set schedule, controlled her clientele and the way she did her job, although the company hired her as an independent contractor. Dream Massage violated the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission act and the employee within her rights to enforce the company to comply with the law and allow her equal opportunities within the business.

References

Internal Revenue Service (October 30, 2017). Independent Contractor Defined. Retrieved from: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-defined

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.). Questions and Answers for Employers. Retrieved from:

https://www1.eeoc.gov//eeoc/publications/muslim_middle_eastern_employers.cfm?renderforprint=1

Workplace Fairness. Religious Discrimination (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.workplacefairness.org/religious-discrimination

Place an Order

Plagiarism Free!

Scroll to Top