Contemporary Ethical Issues in the Workplace – Discrimination Based on Religious Beliefs

Contemporary Ethical Issues in the Workplace – Discrimination Based on Religious Beliefs

A workplace is a place where employees from different backgrounds, whether cultural, religious, or educational, come together, and each contributes their skills and knowledge to meet the common organizational goals. Every one of the employees in my department has their unique skills and talents as well as beliefs. The political beliefs of some tend to be similar, while some views may be in conflict with those of others. The religious beliefs also differ with some, while others may be in agreement. When a workplace openly discriminates against employees based on religious grounds, then it amounts to being unethical. Hire our assignment writing services in case your assignment is devastating you. Our team of experts is ready to help.

A while back, the department head where I worked was unethical in his leadership as he openly encouraged discrimination based on religious grounds. One of my colleagues, who is a practicing Seventh-Day Adventist and another Jehovah’s Witness follower, bore the brunt of his discrimination. During the daily morning briefs, he made it a habit to make callous jokes that targeted the two religions. He denied the SDA follower time off on Saturdays to worship and openly called the Jehovah Witness a ‘hell-bound fanatic.’ On one occasion, one of the two colleagues was late in submitting a report that the department head was waiting to receive. The department head came to the open-plan office and started hurling unprintable insults at my colleague, which implied that my colleague needed to go to a mental institute for an evaluation because of the brainwashing his religion had done to him.

Kidder Model of Decision Making

1. Recognize that there is a moral issue: The department head needed to know that discriminating against an employee based on religion or other beliefs was unethical leadership. He had created a toxic environment to work in and instilled fear in the employees.
2. Determine the Actor: The main actor is the department head and the two employees that were discriminated against. The company management has a role to play in ensuring that a toxic work environment is discouraged (Field, 2014).
3. Gather the Relevant Facts: Organizational policy stipulates that all employees should follow the rules and regulations laid therein. In return, the company stipulates that it will uphold the rights of every employee. The policies also state that the organization does not tolerate discrimination of any kind, and it is an equal opportunity employer. The department head had gone against company policy and violated the employee’s rights.
4. Test for right-versus-wrong issues: This fits the description of legal issues because it violates the rights of the employees and the organizational policies. The actions by the department head go against my personal moral principles because I believe that the country gives a constitutional right to freedom of religious beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly forbids discrimination against employees based on their religious belief or lack thereof in ‘hiring, firing, or any other terms and conditions of employment’. It is wrong to belittle a person based on their religious beliefs, as it only breeds hatred and conflict. The actions fail the publicity test because if the rest of the organizational employees became aware that the department head had created a toxic work environment, they may demand immediate action that could escalate to a tabloid story. Additionally, the issue fails the moral exemplar test because the department head should be the first in line to ensure that the workplace is conducive to optimal employee productivity.
5. Test for right-versus-right dilemma paradigms: This case fails in the individual versus community test because the manager is self-absorbed in his religious beliefs and believes everyone else is wrong in not believing in what he believes. He was wrong in belittling the employee publicly rather than looking for ways of resolving the issue of delayed work submission. The department head had a short-term conceptualization of his actions and did not consider that his actions could result in an organization-wide protest against him. He was unjust in his actions because he did not take time to find out why the employee delayed in handing in the report; instead, he chose to humiliate him and used derogatory religious language and insults. Lastly, rather than seeking the truth as to why the report was delayed, he chose to ignore the loyalty of the employee to his work and went on an insult spree.

Identify other role-specific values and duties: The national constitution and the organizational policies forbid discrimination of employees based on religious grounds.

6. 6. Apply resolution principles. Kantian categorical imperative calls that man should act in a way those actions can become a universal law. The department head could very well be discriminated against in another place and time based on his religion. He should consider how it would feel like to be discriminated against and with that make a decision not to be biased against others for whatever reasons (Taylor, 2011).
   7. Investigate the ‘trilemma’ options: The first option is to have the department head let go of the organization for discriminating against an employee and creating a toxic work environment. The second would be to have the organization’s management force the department head to go for leadership training that will help him become a better leader. The third would be to demote the department head and, in his place, have a proven transactional leader who will create a conducive environment for the employees.

6. Make the decision: I would request my colleagues that we write a letter of complaint to the organizational management. The letter will detail the different incidences where the department head openly discriminated against and insulted the two employees working in our department. In the letter, we request that the department head be demoted from his position and required to undergo forced training in transformational leadership (Mulvey & Padilla, 2010).
7. Revisit and Reflect on the decision: Every employee has a right to believe and follow whatever religious teachings as long as these do not interfere with their productivity at work or the beliefs of others. Organizational policies expressly prohibit discrimination based on religious grounds. The department head lacks the qualities of transformational leadership. He clearly fails as a leader as can be seen by the toxic work environment he created. Hence, the decision to have him demoted and go on forced training is the best option.

Reflection

As an employee in the said department and as a first-hand witness to the discrimination that the department head meted out to my colleagues, I feel that the decision to have him demoted is the best. It is wrong, in every sense, to humiliate and discriminate a person based on self-righteousness. The department head holds that his beliefs are superior to those of my colleagues, which he thinks gives him the right to be mean to others. The Kidder Model of decision-making was my tool of choice because it helped me evaluate the situation and even come up with possible solutions to avoid bias.

References

Field, T. (2014). Toxic work environment. Mental illness in the workplace: Psychological disability management, 207.

Mulvey, P. W., & Padilla, A. (2010). The environment of destructive leadership. When leadership goes wrong: Destructive leadership, mistakes, and ethical failures, 49-71.

Taylor, R. S. (2011). Reconstructing Rawls: The Kantian foundations of justice as fairness. Penn State Press.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964#:~:text=Title%20VII%20prohibits%20employment%20discrimination,Rights%20Act%20of%201991%20(Pub.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

In this exercise, you will identify and analyze the last two contemporary ethical issues in the workplace. This issue should involve an ethical conflict drawn from your personal experience or from news reports. (Be sure to protect the privacy of others if you choose a personal case). If you are unsure of the suitability of a particular issue for the case, contact your mentor as soon as possible for approval or help in choosing an issue. Construct your case following these steps.

Discrimination Based on Religious Beliefs

1. Provide a description: Describe the situation in enough detail for the reader to understand the background and the issues. Write this description in paragraph form.
2. Apply a decision-making format: Resolve the issue using Kidder’s Ethical Checkpoints or the Five “I” format from Chapter 3. You may use lists for some steps, such as when specifying possible solutions.
3. Reflect: Evaluate your decision and the format you followed. Identify what you learned from your analysis.

(Objective 5.6)

Description

In each contemporary case, you will identify and analyze a contemporary ethical issue in the workplace drawn from your personal experience or news reports. (Be sure to protect the privacy of others if you choose a personal case).

• Target Length: 3 to 4 pages (750 to 1000 words)
• Description of Task: Each paper is fully described in the pertinent assignment.