employers must provide “ reasonable accommodation without undue hardship .” W r i t i n g

“Yes” or “No” or “I agree” is not an answer nor is it a response.
I’m looking for developed answers that include an analysis of the
scenario in relationship to the content of the reading materials. A
response is a comment to someone so please indicate whose post you are
responding to and develop your answer. I don’t know the context for your
response if I don’t know who, by name, you are responding to. The
statement, “I agree with you”, doesn’t tell me who you are responding to
as all I see is a string of names.

Classmate Discussion:

Who specifically benefits from the “Look Policy”? What ethical considerations does this give rise to?

Look Policy is beneficial for Finch & Abercromb as the company is
haring the staff with similar uniforms and headgears. It is a kind of
strategy for attracting the consumer and enhance the target sale. In
this regard, the look policy by the company is all in all for the
benefit of the company, but when an individual rejected by the company
or fire from the company on the violation of look policy, so, he can sue
the company into the court for such kind of gender and ethnic
discrimination and in result, he can get compensation from the company
with the ruling of the court.

Nowadays, it is common that different companies are using different
strategies in the market, if Finch & Abercromb is using such kind of
policy, then they have the authority to hire the people who follow the
company policy. For example, if one security guard rejects to wear the
uniform then he must not be at the job without proper dress.

What is Tamar claiming is the basis(s) for her lawsuit? Do you believe she will win? Why or why not?

Tamar claims that she was discriminated against based on religion as
she didn’t know the look policy of the company, but, she was rejected
just because of covering her head and the concerned authority thought
that she will be unable to wear the cap, so she must not be in the
company.

In my opinion, Tamar will not win the lawsuit, because the company
can argue in the court that they were not intended to discriminate
against her, but they were just looking for the look policy and she was
not suitable for it.

What will form Finch & Abercromb’s answer/defenses? Do you believe they will win? Why or why not?

In the defense, Finch & Abercromb will claim that they were just
following the look policy of the company, nor violating any religious
codes and norms. In this regard, the company can present the list of the
employees who belong to the same religion as the rejected girl also
belongs.

What federal administrative agency has the charge to investigate and sue in cases such as these?

It is a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act specifies
that employers must provide “reasonable accommodation without undue
hardship.” So, the federal administrative agency has the right to
investigate such kind of violations at the corporation and individual
level.