Law Ethics

Regardless, Title VII’s notions have stood up in court, and this means that it has to be acknowledged in the workplace. This is true of the Eatman case, and through further analysis, once can display the fact that UPS’s intentions were clearly in the wrong, as Title IV does not allow them to fire on the basis of religious discrimination.
Title VII does not allow anyone to be discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, sexual preference, or religion in the workplace. Those who have particularly religious ideals (i.e. certain holidays that must be observed, as in the Jewish faith) cannot be discriminated against by the company on the basis of these ideals. This law has been written to include any standard religious observance and thus needs to be carefully observed and respected by companies. Therefore, if companies are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, they are certainly not able to discriminate against one’s choice of dress because of his or her religion. While UPS does have a policy that only UPS hats can be worn on the job, in light of Eatman’s known religious preference, an exception should have been made to this rule. Eatman is of the Rastafarian religion and was mandated to wear a turban to cover his dreadlocks. certainly there is no harm in this mandate. Since it was a religious policy, UPS should not have discriminated against this desire, as it is a violation of Title VII to do this.
UPS further violated Title VII by actually taking the step of firing Eatman over the situation. This is demonstrating a clear act of discrimination against one of a different religion. The concept of termination is not an acceptable approach in this situation, and it is in clear violation of Title VII. Obviously Eatman had disclosed his religion and his reason for wanting to wear a turban. Since this was a religious preference and because Title VII protects religious preference in the workplace, UPS should have given into the original request. UPS does not have any right to fire somebody on the basis of wearing a turban instead of a hat for his or her religion. Had Eatman demonstrated gross negligence or demonstrated the fact that he could not successfully complete his job,that would have been another item. But the wearing of a turban versus a hat certainly has no bearing on the overall job performance. It is acknowledged that UPS has a policy about wearing hats, but again, the fact that this was a religious preference and request should have been considered. Not considering a religious request is a clear violation of Title VII, and UPS has certainly mistreated Eatman and his requests.
In order to correct this issue, UPS must first allow Eatman to come back to his job. Since the firing on the basis of the hat policy was discriminatory and unethical, Eatman should be awarded his job. Furthermore, UPS needs to rewrite their business policies in general to make sure that their policies do not allow for any type of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual preference, or religion. UPS, as a company, will need to review all aspects of its policies in order to make sure that they are being fair and ethical as far as the concept of non-discrimination according to Title VII is concerned. This may need to involve all board members or stockholders, and will