Discussion 3


Author’s name


It is clear according to the civil right Act of 1964 that it isillegal and unlawful for any employer to fire or discharge anemployee on the basis of their religious beliefs (Friedman,2010). In the case of MaryJo, the religious beliefs areconflicting with the employment principles and they are causing unduehardship on the business. Additionally, it is evident that MaryJo ismaking other employees uncomfortable and hence interfering with theirlevels of productivity. Whereas MaryJo may complain with the EEOCabout her termination, it is clear that her claim cannot stand thetest of time. It is mandatory upon the employer to accommodate suchreligious beliefs such as dressing and lent (Friedman,2010). However, it is impractical and illogical for theemployer, other employees and the business to undergo undue hardshipas a result of the religious beliefs of a single employee.

It is clear that the religious beliefs of the employee such asproselytizing were too onerous for the employerto bear. In other words, it was prudent for the employer to fireMaryJo, rather than try to accommodate undue hardship for hisbusiness. Additionally, complains from other employees on thereligious behaviors of MaryJo were sufficient to warrant thedischarge of MaryJo. The assumption that MaryJo was a nuisance to theother employees is true. It is imperative to note that the otheremployee have their religious rights and beliefs as well. Theparticular employee was infringing on their rights by incessantlytrying to preach to them.

In this regard, the two replies to the MaryJo case are true. Herbehavior was a in conflict with the employment principles andtherefore her dismissal was warranted. It would have been prudent forthe particular employee to give details of her religion to heremployer at the initial point of entry into the employment. In lightof the above points, it is clear that the claim by MaryJo to the EEOCdoes not hold water and is therefore not solid.


Friedman, A. H. (2010).&nbspLitigatingemployment discrimination cases.Costa Mesa, CA: James Pub.