Read the following chapters of the course textbook, Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and Digital Environment (18th ed.):
Chapter 45: Securities Regulation
Chapter 51: Employment Law
Review the Djarra vs. McFatty’s transcript of court interview of parties Download Djarra vs. McFatty’s transcript of court interview of partiessupplemental material.
Review the following cases:
Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp.Links to an external site., 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004)
EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLCLinks to an external site., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (D. Ariz. 2006)
Tiano v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc.Links to an external site., 139 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 1998).
The McFatty’s Burger Joint case involves a claim of religious discrimination by the plaintiff, Adjha Djarra against her former employer, the defendant, McFatty’s Burger Joint. Djarra is alleging that the manager of McFatty’s, Ron Johnson, did not allow her to wear a hijab at work in observance of her Muslim faith during the holy month of Ramadan. She also claims that Johnson did not provide her with an accommodation for her beliefs but instead terminated her employment. Johnson argues that a hijab violates the company’s dress code and that he did offer an accommodation to Djarra
Assume the role of the judge in this case. Analyze the legal issues presented by the parties and state how you would rule on each of the issues presented. Remember that your ruling should be based on your legal analysis and not on your own personal views.
Use the IRAC method to apply the law to the facts and reach a legal conclusion based on your analysis.
Your legal analysis should summarize the legal framework that applies to religious discrimination cases under Title VII (review EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC [2006], Tiano v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc. [1998], and Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp. [2004]).
address the following:
Determine whether Djarra established a prima facie case of religious discrimination against McFatty’s Burger Joint.
Discuss whether Mr. Johnson made a good faith effort to offer reasonable accommodations to Ms. Djarra or whether Mr. Johnson could not reasonably accommodate Ms. Djarra without undue hardship to McFatty’s Burger Joint.
Identify the types of damages (monetary and equitable) available under Title VII for religious discrimination.
Describe the type of damages, the monetary amount, and any equitable relief that could be awarded to Djarra if her case is successful.
The cases of Tiano v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc. (1998) and EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC (2006) further define the scope of reasonable accommodation. The courts have held that an accommodation is reasonable if it eliminates the conflict between the religious practice and the job requirement. In Alamo, the court found that allowing a Muslim employee to wear a head covering met this standard. Similarly, allowing Ms. Djarra to wear a simple hijab would have been a reasonable accommodation and would not have imposed more than a de minimis cost on McFatty's Burger Joint. The defendant's failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process to find a truly reasonable accommodation is also a factor in this ruling.
3. Damages and Equitable Relief
Under Title VII, a successful plaintiff in a religious discrimination case may be awarded both monetary damages and equitable relief.
Monetary Damages: These can include compensatory damages for emotional distress and financial losses, as well as punitive damages to punish the defendant for malicious or reckless conduct. The amount of compensatory and punitive damages is capped based on the size of the employer, with a maximum of $300,000 for companies with more than 500 employees. Back pay, which is the wages and benefits lost from the date of termination until the date of the judgment, is also a form of monetary relief.
Equitable Relief: This is non-monetary relief designed to put the plaintiff back in the position they would have been in had the discrimination not occurred. It can include reinstatement to the job, front pay (if reinstatement is not feasible), and court orders to change company policies.
4. Award to Djarra
Based on my legal analysis, I would award the following to Ms. Djarra:
Back Pay: I would award Ms. Djarra all lost wages and benefits from the date of her termination until the date of this judgment. The specific monetary amount will be determined based on evidence of her salary and benefits at McFatty's.
Compensatory Damages: I would award Ms. Djarra compensatory damages for the emotional distress and humiliation she experienced as a result of her wrongful termination. A reasonable amount for this would be determined based on the severity of the distress and the duration of her unemployment.
Sample Answer
Prima Facie Case
I rule that Ms. Djarra has successfully established a prima facie case of religious discrimination against McFatty’s Burger Joint. To do so, she must show that: (1) she holds a bona fide religious belief; (2) she informed her employer of her belief; (3) the belief conflicts with an employment requirement; and (4) she was disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.
Bona Fide Religious Belief: Ms. Djarra stated she wears the hijab in observance of her Muslim faith during the holy month of Ramadan. This is a sincere religious practice.
Informing the Employer: The transcript indicates that Ms. Djarra requested to wear her hijab and informed her manager, Mr. Johnson, of the reason for this request.
Conflict with Employment Requirement: McFatty’s dress code policy prohibits head coverings. Ms. Djarra’s religious practice of wearing a hijab directly conflicted with this policy.
Adverse Employment Action: The transcript confirms that Ms. Djarra was terminated from her employment for her refusal to remove the hijab.
These facts, as established by the plaintiff, are sufficient to create a presumption of religious discrimination, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant to show they offered a reasonable accommodation or that doing so would cause an undue hardship.
2. Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship
I find that Mr. Johnson's effort to offer an accommodation was not made in good faith and that McFatty’s Burger Joint could have reasonably accommodated Ms. Djarra without undue hardship.
The defendant bears the burden of proving that they offered a reasonable accommodation. In this case, Mr. Johnson's offer of an accommodation—to work in the back of the restaurant out of the public's sight—was not a reasonable one, as it would have segregated Ms. Djarra from other employees and the public, creating a separate and unequal work environment. Furthermore, Mr. Johnson's claim that a hijab violates the company's dress code and would be an undue hardship because it would distract customers and harm the company’s brand is not a sufficient legal defense. As established in Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2004), an employer must do more than simply assert that an accommodation would be a hardship; they must demonstrate that it would result in more than a de minimis cost. The mere possibility of customer annoyance or a subjective concern about brand image is not considered an undue hardship under Title VII.