Glamor Noke Case

Glamor Noke Case

Student Name

School

Instructor

Date

Based on the case, Laruaf will sue the company based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The act postulates that an employer shall not discriminate employees based on sex, race, color, nationality or religious basis. In this case, the organization does not state clearly the requirements of their rules and they have not clearly stated to what extent caps need not be worn. Based on the act, laruaf is going to win the case in consideration of the following facts.

In the company’s rules cap has no clear or definitive definition. Rules ought to be clear. Larauf’s hijab cap is based on religious belief. The manager fails to hire Lauraf who is fit for the job due to her religion and thus the company violated the Title VII act of 1964. Under the Title VII Act of 1964, on equality in employment opportunity, the employer must not do discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin (Belton, 2015). In Glamor Noke case, her faith was not respected and equal employment opportunity was not considered since she was the fine personnel for the job.

Inopportune cases, discrimination is allowed under the case if bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) necessary to a specific organization. Under protected traits, it is only in such cases where discrimination is allowed. In this case, the rules of the organization have not stated any disclosure to discrimination under the stated clause. For one to prove the BFOQ, three elementary conditions must be met; relationship (direct) between protected trait and ability to perform a duty, that the BFOQ relates to the mission of the business, and lastly that no reasonable alternative for the trait (Lidge, 2005).

In this case, Larauf’s Hijab cap does not restrict her from performing her job and again the company hasn’t expressed the trait as protected traits. Since the cap rule is not the central rule, she will win the case.

References

Belton, R. (2015). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Decade of Private Enforcement and Judicial Developments. . Louis ULJ, 20, 225.

Lidge III, E. F. (2005). Law Firm Employment Discrimination in Case Assignments at the Client’s Insistence: A Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. Conn. L. Rev., 38, 159.