|
|
Post by instructor on Sept 18, 2012 15:48:29 GMT -5
Chapter 6 - The Constitution and Regulation of Business
For your Discussion assignment for chapter 6, please look at discussion question number 1.
Post your response to this question by replying to this forum thread or by replying to a classmate's comments.
Please see your syllabus for the requirements for the discussion forum so you will get full credit.
This forum will close at 11:59 PM on Tuesday, September 25, after which time you will not be allowed to post.
|
|
|
|
Post by bcald20 on Sept 21, 2012 15:59:05 GMT -5
If an employee refuses to work on Sunday and you fire them and they apply for unemployment compensation you should not contest their claim. This is because you will be violating the First Amendment, which states that employer must allow a person to have Sunday off or allow the state to pay unemployment compensation. If the employee refuses to work on Sunday because of their desire to play golf, I probably still wouldn't contest it. Who's to say they won't claim to the court that they are wanting to be off on Sunday because of Religious beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by clepps1 on Sept 21, 2012 23:45:37 GMT -5
I dont think the employee should contest because the employee will use the First Amendment as justifiction. The First Amendment deals with freedom of religion and if an establishment is open on Sundays this could interfer with the employees right to reserve this day as one to worship or celebrate their religious beliefs other than working on that day. This violates the free exercise clause where the employer has to allow the person to be off or allow the state to pay unemployment compensation and increase the owner's tax. I dont think I would protest if the employee wanted to be off on Sunday because they could always lie and turn around and say they was really taking off for religious reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by mmjhnsn7 on Sept 22, 2012 21:32:39 GMT -5
Whenever an individual accepts a position in retail, it is normally quite common to expect random and frequent schedule changes; however, if they to took the job because the store was closed on Sunday and assumed it would accommodate their religious dedications then I feel it would definitely violate the employees' First Amendment rights to terminate employment. This in turn makes it wrong to contest their claim, because the store was originally closed on Sunday's which allowed for these two employees to exercise their religious beliefs on that day, so technically it is the employers fault.
I think the same rules should apply even if the employee wanted to use Sunday as a day to play golf. The sports store was originally closed on Sunday, which I feel is significant to this situation. When people seek employment they tend to pursue jobs that fit their individual schedules, so when the owner decides to create new days to work, that didn't initially exist, I think the employer is responsible for the lose of the employees' job.
|
|
|
|
Post by dphelps1223 on Sept 24, 2012 16:38:29 GMT -5
No I should not contest their filing for unemployment. Freedom of religion is in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And since I was normally closed on Sundays, but decided to open because everyone else did, I should not assume that the employees would want to change their religious beliefs because of me. I should agree and approve their unemployment once approved by the state. In the future, I should change my regulations and ask if a future employee has a religious preference that requires him/her not to work on Sundays.
If an employee wants off the play golf, that's a different story. But when questioned about it, he could just say, it was for religious reasons. Who could prove that it wasn't? We could in up in long drawn out battle over whether or not the purpose was religious based or personal.
|
|
naman
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by naman on Sept 24, 2012 20:45:12 GMT -5
No You should not contest because it is unconstitutional to allow them to not work on the day they observe their sabbath. They got fired because they could not do their job; not because of their religion. If the employee refused to work because he liked to play golf on Sunday; he would instantly be fired.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethamathews on Sept 24, 2012 21:38:57 GMT -5
Because the First Amendment protects against the freedom of religion, the employer should not contest their claim. The store was originally closed on Sunday. Therefore, the employess had the opportunity to observe their religious beliefs on that day. However, firing an employee because of their religious beliefs is a violation of their constitutional right to freedom of religion. Why did the employer fire the two employees in the first place? Depending on the size of the store, the employer would have more than two employees. Why wouldn't he/she just have somebody else work on Sundays that did not mind working on that day?
The same should not be said for someone who just wants to play golf on Sundays. Unlike the above situation, there is no constitutional right to freedom of play. The employee with the golf complaint has no argument. With enough time given that the store will now be open on Sundays , the employee can reschedule his/her golf plans.
|
|
|
|
Post by clintbeilke on Sept 25, 2012 11:45:41 GMT -5
According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an employer is not discriminating an employee, thereby breaking the law, if by accommodating to his/her religious beliefs and practices the employer is caused undue hardship. "An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work."(EEOC) In this case, I would argue that due to a low number of workers that I currently have working in my store, by accommodating to the religious practices and beliefs of the two workers, I am forcing the remaining workforce to do more than their share of irksome work and sharply decreasing my workplace efficiency. I would, ergo, proceed to contest said employees' Unemployment Compensation claim. If the employees refused to work on Sunday due to personal recreation, the same action should be taken as with the case of exercising religious practices. The difference in this case, is that, given my company is in Tennessee which is an "Employment At-Will" state, as an employer, I am able to "fire, suspend, or discipline the employees for any reason, good or bad."(TN.GOV) Citations: 1) www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm2) www.tn.gov/labor-wfd/faq_laws.shtml#employmentatwill |
|
|
|
Post by clintbeilke on Sept 25, 2012 11:51:13 GMT -5
Whenever an individual accepts a position in retail, it is normally quite common to expect random and frequent schedule changes; however, if they to took the job because the store was closed on Sunday and assumed it would accommodate their religious dedications then I feel it would definitely violate the employees' First Amendment rights to terminate employment. This in turn makes it wrong to contest their claim, because the store was originally closed on Sunday's which allowed for these two employees to exercise their religious beliefs on that day, so technically it is the employers fault. I think the same rules should apply even if the employee wanted to use Sunday as a day to play golf. The sports store was originally closed on Sunday, which I feel is significant to this situation. When people seek employment they tend to pursue jobs that fit their individual schedules, so when the owner decides to create new days to work, that didn't initially exist, I think the employer is responsible for the lose of the employees' job. That is a really good argument that the employees began their employment at the retail store on the premise they would not be required to work on Sundays. The employees may, in fact, be able to use that as justification to sue the store. |
|
|
|
Post by melston on Sept 25, 2012 17:41:28 GMT -5
No, the claim should not be contested. Under the free exercise clause the constitution requires that the owner of the business either allow the person to have Sundays off or allow the state to pay unemployment compensation and increase the business taxes.
If an employee refuses to work on Sunday because he wants to go play golf that is another story. They would not be covered under the freedom of religion. They would more than likely be fired and not be able to get unemployment compensation.
|
|
|
|
Post by melston on Sept 25, 2012 17:44:50 GMT -5
No I should not contest their filing for unemployment. Freedom of religion is in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And since I was normally closed on Sundays, but decided to open because everyone else did, I should not assume that the employees would want to change their religious beliefs because of me. I should agree and approve their unemployment once approved by the state. In the future, I should change my regulations and ask if a future employee has a religious preference that requires him/her not to work on Sundays. If an employee wants off the play golf, that's a different story. But when questioned about it, he could just say, it was for religious reasons. Who could prove that it wasn't? We could in up in long drawn out battle over whether or not the purpose was religious based or personal. I agree with what you said about the golf deal. Even though the reason he said he needed off was not specifically for religious purposes how would we be able to prove that? It would be a very hard thing to fight in court and I do not know if it would honestly be worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethamathews on Sept 25, 2012 17:51:48 GMT -5
No I should not contest their filing for unemployment. Freedom of religion is in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And since I was normally closed on Sundays, but decided to open because everyone else did, I should not assume that the employees would want to change their religious beliefs because of me. I should agree and approve their unemployment once approved by the state. In the future, I should change my regulations and ask if a future employee has a religious preference that requires him/her not to work on Sundays. If an employee wants off the play golf, that's a different story. But when questioned about it, he could just say, it was for religious reasons. Who could prove that it wasn't? We could in up in long drawn out battle over whether or not the purpose was religious based or personal. I agree that the employer should approve the unemployment based on the fact that the employees were fired because of their religious beliefs. However, I did not think about the fact that the employee that wanted off to play golf could just make up an excuse based on reiligious or personal beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by bjlong on Sept 25, 2012 20:26:17 GMT -5
No, the employer should not deny employees unemployment benefits if they refuse to work on Sundays. They were not hired to work on Sunday when first employed because the store was closed on Sundays. If they refuse to work and the employer try to fire them, they can say that the employer is violating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
If employee wants to be off on Sundays to play golf or any other recretion sport, they should work it out with the employer, because you are hired to work for the company and you understood the store to be closed on Sundays. But when the company supply and demands increased, you should understand that you work for the company and they need you there. Maybe they can ask for volunteers to work on Sundays for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by jyork1 on Sept 25, 2012 20:51:36 GMT -5
In this case I would not contest their claim. The employees were hired on under the assumption that they would not have to work on Sundays since the business was originally closed on Sundays. It does not matter why the employees wanted Sunday off. The fact is, when the employees hired on at your company they did not have to work on Sundays and therefore should not be punished or in this case fired because the boss wants to change the hours of operation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jyork1 on Sept 25, 2012 21:00:22 GMT -5
Whenever an individual accepts a position in retail, it is normally quite common to expect random and frequent schedule changes; however, if they to took the job because the store was closed on Sunday and assumed it would accommodate their religious dedications then I feel it would definitely violate the employees' First Amendment rights to terminate employment. This in turn makes it wrong to contest their claim, because the store was originally closed on Sunday's which allowed for these two employees to exercise their religious beliefs on that day, so technically it is the employers fault. I agree. Your argument that the employee signed on under the assumption that they would not have to work on Sundays is more than enough reason for the employee to get unemployement benifits. It doesn't matter if the employee goes to church or plays golf. Either way the store was originally closed on Sundays. I think the same rules should apply even if the employee wanted to use Sunday as a day to play golf. The sports store was originally closed on Sunday, which I feel is significant to this situation. When people seek employment they tend to pursue jobs that fit their individual schedules, so when the owner decides to create new days to work, that didn't initially exist, I think the employer is responsible for the lose of the employees' job. |
|
