Employment Contract Termination Complexity

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Title VII
Other Implications
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Legislations that regulate employment practices in the US ensure that personnel of a company is not discriminated against due to their religion, sex, or another characteristic. More specifically, Title VII is the primary bill that provides an opportunity for employees to bring such lawsuits to court. This paper aims to examine the case study of Smith and Nickels to determine whether her termination was lawful under Title VII.

Title VII

Firstly, it is necessary to determine whether Smith’s claims regarding the violation of one’s rights under Title VII are correct. According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the law “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin” (“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” n.d., para. 1). It is a civil rights act that affects all employees within the US and prohibits them from discrimination. In this particular case, Smith alleges that her termination was due to her Christianity because in the conversation that led to her being fired she expressed her religion’s approach to the matter.

While it is correct that under the existing laws a company cannot terminate an individual based on his or her religion, the case of Smith goes beyond this implication. It is because Nickels explicitly states that her behavior violated their policy, which regulated the internal relationship between staff members. From the company’s statement, it is evident that Smith’s religion was not considered during the investigation. Discrimination against religion would have to include specific comments from Nickels that demonstrate their position against Christians.

For instance, a claim that one religion is superior to another, or insulting the religious approaches that Smith practices would be considered unlawful (“Religious discrimination,” n.d.). In this case, the company specifically focused on the events that occurred during the break, omitting the connection to religion.

It can be argued that in this case, Smith would have to prove in court that the Christian Church supports her comments in regards to gay people. However, Nickels would be able to argue that this can be interpreted as harassment. A case of Mbuyi vs. Newpark Childcare provides an understanding that Smith may be able to prove that her choice to express her religious beliefs was lawful. In the case in question, the court concluded that Mbuyi’s termination due to comments addressing her colleague’s sexual orientation was unlawful (“Dismissal of Christian worker for homophobic views was discrimination,” n.d.).

However, the company in question did provide an in-depth investigation of the employee’s religious beliefs during the hearing, asking her about particular sins that Christians believe in and other religion-based issues. Additionally, the comments of Mbuyi and Smith differ, as the first woman explicitly stated that her religion did not accept homosexuality, while Smith mentioned that such people should not be allowed to marry and have children, which out specifically citing Christianity.

The case discussed above and the decision of the court provides an understanding of which details should be considered when evaluating Smith’s termination. Firstly, Nickels has to give details of the harassment and conduct a thorough investigation of the matter, which was done by the company (“Dismissal of Christian worker for homophobic views was discrimination,” n.d.). Additionally, it is necessary to determine whether the particular decision was based on the incident or religious beliefs. From the case study, it can be concluded that the company did not aim to discriminate against Smith because the investigation procedure and termination decision was based solely on the incident with another employee.

Additionally, it is necessary to provide an evaluation of Smith’s actions that would present an understanding of Title VII requirements. According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, harassment is “unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information” (“Harassment,” n.d., para. 2). It can be argued that under this definition, Smith created a hostile environment for another employee – Casey, and possibly for others because employees who participated in the conversation made a complaint to management. Therefore, Nickels has a confirmation from other employees that enables an understanding of discriminatory comments made by Smith.

Other Implications

If Smith was to post this comment on her Facebook page, it can be argued that she would not be terminated from her job. Firstly, the case study implies that she would not mention specific names. This would result in the message being considered an expression of her religious beliefs. In case of such events, Title VII would protect her rights and Nickels would be unable to fire her. Therefore, in the first scenario, Smith’s allegations that termination from Nickels was discrimination were unlawful is wrong, while in the second scenario she would be correct.

Conclusion

Overall, this case study presents an understanding of the complexity of cases connected to the termination. While it is evident that Title VII aims to protect individuals from employment discrimination and unlawful termination, the claim of Smith does not appear to be an example of such an occurrence. Nickels carried out a thorough examination of the matter and focused explicitly on the hostility of the internal environment, citing this as the reasoning behind their decision. If Smith was to post similar comments on her Facebook page without addressing a specific employee, the company would be unable to terminate her.